Imagine, if you will, CD Projekt's Konrad Tomaszkiewicz wearing a peaked green cap and stockings, with a bow and arrow strapped to his back, a twinkle in his eye and a definite hint of Merry Manliness to the rear. Here's some music to suit. Now, peruse what he has to say about downloadable content and why you shouldn't have to pay for that shizzle.
"We've always believed in free DLCs," Tomaszkiewicz commented when VG247 popped the question. "The thing is that we consider DLCs as a normal post sale service, which shouldn't be priced.
"That's why we offer expansions to our game for free. This is also a way of saying 'thank you' to the people who decided to buy our game instead of copying it from an unauthorised source."
Makes for pleasant reading, doesn't it? Ah, but DICE's Patrick Bach has a few words of caution, regarding controversy over free Battlefield DLC.
"It's easier for the consumer of today to comprehend that if you pay for something and you get something big and meaty - it's worth it," he told OXM last year.
"When we were giving away small things for free, we actually had people being more upset than happy about it. 'Only three maps? That's not enough.' When we brought it up and said: 'yeah, but it's free?' people said: 'But I would have paid ten dollars for five maps.' 'Well... OK. Let's not talk about this...'"
"Even when it's free, it's not free enough - people felt they didn't get enough maps for free, and that upset me, but we still think it's a good idea - especially if a company is successful and making a lot of money.
"I think a lot of people would say the opposite and just think 'great, more money for us', but we always think it's nice to give small things away."
Go on, ponder and pontificate.
35 comments so far...
Clanger67 on 9 Aug '12 said:
Wow this is great news.Also a shame that many other devs. don't do the same.I fear there won't be loads of takers for it on here though free or not.I still have to get back into it after getting distracted by some of my other backlog.
msbhvn on 9 Aug '12 said:
Have to agree that most DLC isn't worth paying for, but most devs will find it hard to take advice from a dev who keeps releasing its games half finished. And good luck trying to get anything worthwhile on XBL for free. Valve weren't able to manage it, so I don't think CDPR will.
Clanger67 on 9 Aug '12 said:
Well 4J have managed it.Plus i wouldn't say half finished more a prob. of first game ever on console married to the fact people couldn't play it right.
I had no probs. with it and continue to do so.Plus how many games are released half finished even the mighty Skyrim can boast that.
CunningSmile on 9 Aug '12 said:
As the EA guys points out most people (especially the Americans) don't trust free. If you live in a country that glorifies consumerism as much as the UK and US free means inferior and why would you get inferior goods?
True story. 5 years ago I moved house and needed to get rid of my washing machine, it was less than two years old and worked perfectly so rather than throw it away I left it on the drive with a sign that read "Free to good home" A week later it was still sitting there. I changed the sign to read "£50 or nearest offer" and it was stolen within half an hour. People don't trust free.
bamozzy on 9 Aug '12 said:
I agree that the MAJORITY of DLC is not worth buying and I have NEVER criticised FREE DLC. Mass Effect 3 has offered free DLC for its MP and I have enjoyed every one. I am more annoyed that they have decided to charge for a few weapons!
I think if free DLC is used properly it can keep people interested in the game and may even generate more sales of the original. For example if you buy a FPS shooter you know that you will have to buy maps as DLC if you want extra. However if they released new maps every month (for example) then you will keep playing the game, others may buy it knowing they will get free maps and its popularity will grow as well as the reputation of the developer/publisher. EA is heavily criticised for its DLC pricing and online pass codes etc despite the fact they have some great developers making great games. It could certainly do with trying something to rebuild its reputation!
It could also generate more sales in any subsequent game in the franchise IF people think they will be getting continued support and NOT have to pay extra for it!
msbhvn on 9 Aug '12 said:
That's just a case of the general public being dumber than a bag of hammers. Why should people with more than one functioning brain cell have to pay for their stupidity?
Clanger67 on 9 Aug '12 said:
Yet you don't find that problem on the pc.Where there are thousands of Mods,updates,extras all for free.Isn't it more that on console you have always had to pay for the slightest thing and loads of idiots continue to do so.The latest gun dlc for ME3 proves that as in you are paying again for something that was already in the game but not for the SP portion.
SkinnerChinner on 9 Aug '12 said:
I'd agree a lot of paid DLC is well below standard, however, there's also plenty I thought were well worth the price tag; ME2's Lair of the Shadow Broker, all the DLC for Fallout 3 & New Vegas etc...saying that, I can't think of any free content I thought was exceptionally good, can't complain if it cost me nothing (latest example being the ME3 MP stuff, which I've thoroughly enjoyed) - my point being free doesn't necessarily mean good quality, that's down to the developers. It's a really nice thought though, and would be great if more dev's did it, it but honestly, if its quality content, well made, priced reasonably and appeals to me I have no major objection to buying it - unless you want to give it to me for free!?!
FishyGinger on 9 Aug '12 said:
Got to say I can't agree with CDPR, I've played some decent ones like shadow broker, minervas den etc that were really good and worth it (especially the full packs for GTA and Oblivion/Morrowind), and I think they are apart from the story enough to warrant a price. While I agree there is a lot of dross, it's the same with anything, there are a lot of films that are total carp but they shouldn't necessarily be free, who's to say what is or isn't good.
It's getting a bit annoying developers or individuals using a 1 size fits all type argument, like all games should be download only, all dlc should be free etc.
Is there no middle ground where mankind and fish can coexist peacefully.
Plamsa wing on 9 Aug '12 said:
He has a good point really, things like costumes and weapons (Saints Row: The Thrid), DLC that just isn't worth anything at all and is only there to make quick £.
Look at that Genki Bowl DLC, it took me 30 minutes to finish. Now compare that to say Old World Blues for Fallout: New Vegas, that took me over 10 hours to fully complete. That wasn't even £10!
Speaking of New Vegas I bought the DLC for £6.07p on sunday (PC), all of it. That's at least 20 hours content right there.
bamozzy on 9 Aug '12 said:
Or you could wait for GOTY type editions that are usually cheaper than the release day original version AND contain ALL of the DLC. If you haven't bought any of the Fallout 3, New Vegas or Oblivion IV DLC - It is probably cheaper to trade in your original version and get the GOTY editions than buy the DLC now too.
I have Arkham City on the PS3 but will be getting the GOTY edition on xbox for all the additional content - and although I have Fallout 3 and Oblivion - I would rather get the GOTY editions than buy the DLC now. I didn't get New Vegas but would get the GOTY edition of that too.
FishyGinger on 9 Aug '12 said:
Costumes are daft. I know they are generally pointless and no one needs to buy them but things like street fighter are just so cynical. Same with weapons packs from ME2 and the like. But those fallout ones are certainly worth it, would anyone argue with shivering isle being charged for?
While it's very altruistic of them, I'm pretty sure Dice said something similar.
Clanger67 on 9 Aug '12 said:
I wouldn't argue with a lot of Bethesda dlc except the horse armour,lol.Trouble is there aren't many devs. that aren't just content to give shit dlc and they will keep doing it while all the knobs keep buying it.
SkinnerChinner on 9 Aug '12 said:
It's getting a bit annoying developers or individuals using a 1 size fits all type argument, like all games should be download only, all dlc should be free etc.
Is there no middle ground where mankind and fish can coexist peacefully.
You've pretty much summed up my point, developers should focus on creating the quality additional content (which some evidently do, others don't) that adds to the core game experience rather than this "paid or free" argument, too many people expect something for nothing. If developers do that and most will gladly pay for it (maybe they would be even happier if you give it away!), but realistically, imagine the work & resources that went into something like Old World Blues, wouldn't you expected to be paid for something of that quality & substance?
Grummy on 9 Aug '12 said:
They both have a fair point. Whilst some DLC is poorly priced for the quality (or lack thereof) of the DLC in question, others are well priced. I've always said for example that Bethesda priced their DLC well, and I've seen nothing to change my mind on that, but some stuff is just plain poo.
On the flip side though, it is true that people put more value into something they have to pay for, when they start getting things for free they start taking things for granted, hence the 'only 3 free maps?' complaints.
As always, the key to this is making the DLC of good quality, and pricing it sensibly.
SidTheSloth on 9 Aug '12 said:
Just out of interest, anyone know if Microsoft take a cut of DLC sales? I'm under the impression that they charge for the original games license on 360, and charge for each patch/DLC being released on live, but do they then take a cut too?
We always slam the devs/publishers for being greedy, which doubtless some are, but it's not exactly a transparent model and i'm sure if we knew the complete truth that Microsoft wouldn't come out smelling of roses. Obviously they needed to get people interested in developing for 360, but now the user base is there they may not be quite so charitable with costs etc - could be one more reason for DLC/XBLA price increases? The whole set-up is a bit murky...
CunningSmile on 9 Aug '12 said:
I've heard the figure £10K a few times in connection to patches (most recently the guy behind Fez sayig he wouldn't pay it) and I'd guess that DLC would be at least as much, although I'm not sure if they take a flat rate or % from sales, possibly both.
I do know that MS used to give retail releases a couple of free patches (although I'm not sure if that's still the case following the Fez thing) which some developers used to release free DLC if they had nothing too serious to patch.
SkinnerChinner on 9 Aug '12 said:
I believe developers get one free patch for retail games, and have to pay for further patches (although I read the figure was £40k?). Phil Fish & Polytron used up their free patch for Fez, but some still had their saves corrupted (mainly those quite far into the game) - wasn't willing to pay for a relatively 'small' issue that could solved by starting a new game, trying to shift blame for releasing an incomplete/untested fix? I also believe MS are quite set against certain free content - Supergiant wanted Bastion's DLC to be free, but was a mere 80MSP, I also recall reading Jonathan Blow insisting that the Braid Premium theme went live for free but MS put their foot down...
FishyGinger on 9 Aug '12 said:
If you liked fallout 3, you should like new vegas, I thought it was very good. The missions aren't quite as good as F3's were, but there's a lot more to do and some of the writing is better.
I agree waiting for the versions with all the dlc is the best thing to do, not particularly bothered to wait for bethesda games as even without the dlc they're pretty substantial games. I'm not sure why anyone would get capcom fighting games when they're first out though, given the inevitability of super, ultra, super ultra and then super ultra hyper editions coming out 3 months later.
I'm still waiting on the last edition of street fighter 2 on the snes.
ipsofacto on 10 Aug '12 said:
this is so true... the amount of money i've wasted...........
bamozzy on 10 Aug '12 said:
I did like Fallout 3 although I did have an issue with it. I kind of ended up completing the game after about 15 hours - by completing I mean I did the final mission (without giving away spoilers) almost by accident. Once you are into that final sequence you can't back out and it resulted in the game ending with SO many areas and side missions left uncomplete and that kind of ruined it for me. When New Vegas came out, I was still annoyed at the way Fallout 3 had ended AND the way I kind of stumbled into it and so didn't pick it up. I am glad that I didn't as there is now a complete version.
I really was beginning to enjoy Fallout 3 (I bought it for both PS3 and Xbox and Have the Bobblehead Lunchbox tin version) and will definitely have to revisit it again. I know I could have bought DLC to be able to continue the story from the ending (and that ANNOYED me too) but I might pick up the GOTY edition to have all the extra missions and content.
However at the moment I have not long started the Witcher 2 and having spent a few days playing - I still haven't completed Chapter 1 and all side quests yet and have a few other games to work through, also next months BF3 and MW3 DLC and a few good games being released after that I will be getting, I am a bit short of money and short of available game time (with playing all of these as I can't play more than 1 game at a time) to revisit Fallout 3 or get New Vegas just at the moment.
CunningSmile on 10 Aug '12 said:
I had the same experience with Fallout3 and I'm sure we aren't the only ones. However I've yet to not buy a Bethesda DLC so the sting of buying the ability to continue playing was reduced. I thought New Vegas, although it also had a non-continue ending, made a much better job of making it clear this was the end whilst you could still back out. Guess that's Obsidian learning from Bethesda's mistakes.
Pick up the Fallout 3 GOTY though Baz, of the DLC Point Lookout especially is well worth playing (it's like Fallout trying to be Silent Hill) although some of the others are a bit weak.
FishyGinger on 10 Aug '12 said:
I agree to an extent, with other open worlds you can carry on and without knowing it you can miss out on a lot. I knew it ended abruptly from my brother so did side missions, even then I stumbled across the story at a later date so missed out on the GNR level early on. Still it's a story with a beginning and an end, quite nice to see someones whole life from birth to death.
New vegas, while it does end end, does it much better, and with quite a few different endings there is more incentive to play again. Except with all the games out in the next few months, a massive backlog of games to clear (given the amount I can play per week, roughly around 3 years worth...) and wanting to replay other games I'm not sure I have time.
Anyone found the key to immortality yet?
SidTheSloth on 10 Aug '12 said:
I wonder, and this is a theoretical/devils advocate type question, how many more people would buy a game on release at full RRP if it was to include all the DLC for that price? I ask as a lot of publishers claim that DLC is necessary to make up the shortfall on discounted/pre-owned, whether you believe that or not, i think the practice of saying ok, pay full price and you'll get all the DLCs for free would be the most appealing pre-order bonus i've seen. Begs the question whether they'd then put the same effort in for the DLC (a lot of them already have questionable quality)... God, the subject of RRP's and DLC will forever be a minefield, and a deeply unpleasant one at that...
DLC is a great idea gone wrong (yes there are always the few exceptions...)...
CunningSmile on 10 Aug '12 said:
Would that not just end up like the much hated (but perfectly logical to me) online pass? Games like ME2 and both Dragon Ages came with DLC included if you bought new and we've rarely heard the end of the complaints.
SidTheSloth on 10 Aug '12 said:
Suppose people will always complain. Didn't hear anyone complain about Battlefield 3's limited Edition which included the Karkand DLC - until they released the premium months later! I also thought the ME2 cerberus thing was well handled, unlike the Javik one for ME3... >sigh< it's such a depressing topic now DLC, like i say, an idea gone badly wrong...
bamozzy on 10 Aug '12 said:
Some games do with a special edition type and I know they are more than the full RRP for the standard game. I would much prefer to buy a special edition IF it came with all the DLC rather than useless things like art books, keyrings, figurines etc. I bought the Hardened Edition of MW3 because it came with Elite AND ALL of the DLC content and I would prefer to buy Black Ops 2 this way as well if it also comes with all DLC. Some games Like Max Payne 3 or Ghost Recon (I only mention these as they are the some of the latest games I have bought) I wouldn't have spent 'extra' on - I bought Max Payne mainly for the campaign which I enjoyed and the MP is a Bonus as it is really good fun but not good enough to warrant me getting all the DLC. Ghost Recon disappointed me and I would have been annoyed at spending more than I did and probably wouldn't benefit from the DLC in terms of game time. However if they were the same price as a standard copy then maybe I would be more inclined to have bought them.
If they decided to give away the DLC as a bonus for buying New - instead of online passes for example - rewarding you for NOT buying second hand then I think that would do a lot more than rebuild reputations of publishers as it would probably kill (or seriously dent) the second hand market. I think it would have a greater impact than online pass system.
bamozzy on 10 Aug '12 said:
Yeah my biggest issue with 'Premium' was the timing of it! If they announced it BEFORE B2K was released to BUY then I think a lot of people would have complained less. I didn't get the Limited Edition on Xbox (I did for PS3) but spent points on B2K only for them to announce 'Premium' and then spent additional points on that where as IF I had waited I could have saved those points I had spent on B2K. It still worked out cheaper to get Premium than the remaining 4 packs but it meant I spent more than I needed!
CunningSmile on 10 Aug '12 said:
But as I pointed out quite often the online pass for single player games has BEEN DLC and people complained. I've been on these forums since ME2 and I remember no end of people complaining that having to pay for the Cerberus network because they bought second hand was unfair, ditto with the Catwoman missions in Arkham City.
I actually agree with you. I try to buy new as often as possible, even if it means waiting a while to either save up or for the price to drop, and getting DLC is a welcome bonus. Unfortunately Gamers seem to feel uniquely self entitled and want to have their cake and eat it as often as possible, and will complain endlessly if developers feel the need to actually receive money for their hard work. Imagine the cheek of wanting to get paid for a job well done
bamozzy on 10 Aug '12 said:
I can see this from both perspectives though - we as a consumer have the right to buy or sell our items (whether they be books, cars, games etc.) and don't see why we should be penalised by the developers/publishers for doing so. It is the ONLY commodity that does this - You don't buy a second hand book and then have to pay the publisher to get a few missing chapters (only accessible if you buy NEW) or CD's where you don't get access to a few of the tracks, or a car where you have only 3 cylinders and have to pay the manufacturer to let you use all 4...
They are NOT the the only artists to suffer from the second hand market and I doubt they will be the last. I have never sold any game that I really enjoyed even if I have completed it! In fact the only time I have sold games is when I have sold the hardware (which hasn't happened in YEARS - the last was a Nintendo Virtual Boy but that gave me migraines!)
Personally I think they should do more to keep people playing their games and one way would be to offer DLC over a period of time. If the game is any good then people would keep it for at least its DLC schedule. This would also reduce the number of copies available on the 2nd hand market and potentially generate more NEW sales. Much more than online pass system would. This also works for SP based games as often these have additional story or challenge type DLC (ME series, Batman) However it does annoy me IF the content is already on disc and you 'unlock' it by buying new or bits are taking out prior to selling for the sole purpose of DLC content.
I much prefer to buy my games new where possible. I like my games to be pristine, unplayed and all contents included. I like to be the first to open the manual and hate seeing greasy fingermarks, bent corners etc. I would rather wait until a game becomes affordable (and by that I mean to what I am willing to spend on it - only 1-2 games ever come out in a year that I know I will get maximum entertainment value. A game like BF3 for example I bought mainly for the MP and wasn't impressed by the Campaign or co-op where as Mass Effect 3 and Max Payne 3 was all about the campaign as Halo 4 will be for me. Black Ops 2 on the other hand I will be buying for its Campaign, Zombies and MP and (If it plays like all the information I have heard and seen) I would expect to get many hours worth out of all aspects. I can't say that about every game.
However I also believe in freedom of choice (another reason I don't want a download ONLY system - no freedom of choice and artificially high prices due to lack of competition from other retail options - let alone sub-standard internet connection and restricted downloads too) If a game is flooding the 2nd hand market - it only means that the developers have NOT done their job properly. Would you pay a mechanic that doesn't fix your car? I would be much more inclined to pay full RRP for a game and keep it if it is GOOD and has continued support whether that be by DLC content or something else.
FishyGinger on 10 Aug '12 said:
I agree with Cunning, it would be an extension of the online pass which I sort of agree with as it is an incentive to get the game 1st hand, and when the price drops to 10-15 squids it's not bad. But at the minute if people are having to buy these things separately, the developers are having to put some effort in to sell them. Ok they're wide of the mark in a lot of places but there are some undeniably decent downloadable add ons.
If we payed up front, I get the feeling publishers wouldn't allow developers enough time on them as the money is in the bank. But maybe that's me being a bit cynical.
Grummy on 11 Aug '12 said:
Unfortunately, what you would do isn't what most people do, plenty of people will go down the route of finishing a game and then using it as a makeweight for their next game, hence the 2nd hand market being flooded with a game. That isn't an indictment on the quality of the game, it's just the way people work. You also haven't considered that no matter the quality of a game, there will always be plenty of people who don't like it. I remember seeing a lot of copies of Skyrim in CEX shortly after its release, that's not because it's a crap game, it's just because some people can't handle a game of such scope. That just the way it goes.
As for your opening argument, I've heard it all before, it didn't hold much water then, and doesn't now either. The games industry can't be compared to other media, each have their own avenues of revenue, many of which the games market can't apply. Music has embraced digital downloads greater than any other media, and it has helped them greatly, they also have avenues for licensing for the music and images of the singers that gaming just doesn't have. Same with the film industry, it has initial sales, then it has long term revenue from DVD/Blu ray sales, Box office, TV, tie in merchandise. Indeed, the games industry is often used as a secondary media outlet for other media such as film, TV and books. speaking of books, their revenue models are very different from other media, so much so that they're not comparable, especially so when you consider that the cost around making and publishing a book is incredibly low compared to the income from good sales. Even literature has secondary media outlets, again TV, film, game, but also with audio books and of course now on Kindle too.
Cars, cars are a favourite one of mine that people bring up. The cost of designing a new car is high, but once that model is set, it runs for years on end with only minor tweaks. Cars are the ultimate annual installment of the exact same thing, they were doing it years before Call of Duty was even thought of. Car sales, whilst heavy on the 2nd hand market, always have had and always will have a strong number of new car sales, there will always be people who want a new car rather than running the risk of buying 2nd hand. Also, not only did Car manufacturers pioneer the annual installment model, but along with the salesmen, they pioneered what the gaming industry would be lambasted for, removing everything except the bare minimum requirements for the basic package, everything else is content that has been stripped out and held back for further profit. The Automobile industry is notorious for not giving value for money on new sales, but they have to do that to counter loss of sales due to the 2nd hand market, and there will always be a significant demographic of people who will pay for a new car+ trimmings.
People can bitch and complain about the games industry trying to tackle the 2nd hand market all they want, but they can't use other media/car sales etc as a valid argument. They're not. They all have their own business models that account for and react to 2nd hand sales/piracy. It is also worth pointing out, as always, that the games market is the only one in 20 years or more that hasn't changed its sale prices despite cost of development jumping up astronomically. Tomb Raider cost about 3 million to make, it was sold for £40, Oblivion cost around the 40 million mark to make, it was sold for £40. Every other media has changed its prices accordingly.
People really don't have a good, valid reason to complain about the small cost for an online pass that you only need if you're playing online, or paying for DLC. As long as someone can still buy a game 2nd hand, and play the singleplayer experience with nothing essential missing (Catwoman DLC was just an added feature, it adds nothing of real value or necessity to the experience and nothing is lost by not having it), then there is no problem. If the industry starts going down the route of blocking out whole chunks of game because it's 2nd hand, then I would agree to it being a step too far, as things stand, it's a fair trade.
carthage888 on 11 Aug '12 said:
So are you going to be getting the dark souls DLC then grummy? Looks like great value for money!
. I agree completely that some DLC is simply a waste of money. I mean look at all the costume packs for fighters. I mean forkin out a fiver for imaginary clothes? Rip off! But then again some DLC is fantastic and worth paying more for, e.g the battlefield 3 DLC seeing as you get a crap ton of guns, maps and challenges to keep you playing.
Naaaa I'm just jokin with ya
bamozzy on 11 Aug '12 said:
As I said I can see it from both sides so I do agree in your points and am only being a ''Devils Advocate' in my comments. The second hand issue and what developers do to try and overcome that is irrelevant as I (nearly) always buy new - the only time I don't is if I am unable to get a game new. I can only think of a couple of games in my collection that I didn't get new but they are all OLD games. I bought my first PS3 2nd hand and it came with quite a few used games (none that need online passes etc) but I think everything else is new.
I do think that we as consumers have a right to be able to buy games second hand though and I think that Games retailers have a lot of blame in the state of the industry and why developers/publishers are feeling forced into taking measures to try and combat some of the loss of revenue BUT I don't think they should be targeting the gamers. I think that games retailers should NOT be able to trade in second hand games for at least 3 months after they are released - they should NOT be able to buy or sell these games for that period of time. Maybe they should also be licensed to sell 2nd hand games and the money generated from this goes to the developers or even a percentage of EACH second hand game sold should go to them. Retailers are the ones who are profiting from us AND taking away the money from the developers. It seems we are the ones who are being made responsible and penalised for the profiteering of the game retailers.
I have seen 2nd hand games for sale less than 24 hours after it is released and in large quantities too. I have also been asked by a retailer IF I would prefer to have the game 2nd hand instead of the new copy I was buying and save a few pounds (literally 24 hours after the game was released). I know why they asked as they make MUCH more money from the sale of the 2nd hand game than they would from the sale of the new game. If people do take them up on their offer - it is no wonder why developers/publishers are losing out. Hence my suggestions in the paragraph above could help solve that.
However that is a different topic and I have said this in more appropriate forums.
I still think it would be nice to get all DLC free IF you buy the game NEW. Or special editions that will do this instead of all the other 'rubbish' (I know some of it is quite interesting but most isn't really enhancing the actual game experience or actually rubbish but you know what I mean) they package it with. Given the choice I certainly would prefer DLC to Art books, figurines etc..
I know some DLC doesn't really live up to expectations and feels over priced. 1200pts is basically the equivalent to a quarter of the price of a game but you rarely get 25% extra content. and often can buy XBLA games that offer so much more for less money (800pts) but it is relative - I think some people get more out of it than others. I think DLC should be capped at 800pts (unless in certain circumstances which the developer/publisher would have to justify a reason why they are charging more) however if that happened I could see Map packs having fewer maps and more frequent DLC drops.
You can't please everybody all the time and there is no easy answer...
Almost as difficult to answer but probably more important...
.... Iorveth or Roche??
Grummy on 11 Aug '12 said:
I totally agree that consumers deserve the option to deal 2nd hand, but I don't see why the developers shouldn't be allowed to try and make some fair profit from it either. Personally, I was in great support of the giving devs/publishers a cut of the 2nd hand sales and stopping the online passes, but as that hasn't happened, I certainly see no valid reason to complain about the passes being used as they are.
The problem with the Retailers and your suggestions are that for such a thing to happen, it would need to be passed through government, the only way it could be forced is by Publishers putting sanctions on them, refusing to give them future titles for sale etc, but that would only hurt themselves in the long run. The bottom line is that the industry needs retailers to sell the games, so they have to take it easy on them, retailers are suffering major decreases in revenue, hence the need greater than ever to promote 2nd hand sales, so it all trickles down onto the consumer to deal with. Unless everyone starts buying a ton of new games every month, then the both publishers and retailers are going to find ways to maximise profits. All things considered, I don't think the optional cost of the online pass is really that big a deal.