EA's Assault on Your Pockets Continues

[Arnwulf]

I can't wait for auto manufacturers to start charging for activation of my brakes if I buy from a used dealership.
Is there any industry in America that continues to make money from the second, third, etc sale of their product? I'm having trouble thinking of one.

Auto dealers are able to sell their own used cars, game companies can not.

[Kiarax]

I can't wait for auto manufacturers to start charging for activation of my brakes if I buy from a used dealership.
Is there any industry in America that continues to make money from the second, third, etc sale of their product? I'm having trouble thinking of one.

Yeah, not having access to additional content or the ability to play online is totally the same as something that stops you from legally driving a vehicle entirely. I can see where you're coming from but it's a silly comparison. Why does every market have to abide by the same rules? Unless this goes widescale it probably won't effect the used game market at all anyway. If it does, good for the devs. Most game devs take massive risks in making and releasing games, potentially losing millions if it doesn't sell exceptionally well and it often results in good companies closing down. I'm all for this, it is a much better alternative to the obtrusive DRM that some devs are trying to push nowadays. But I honestly can't even remember the last time I bought a used game anyway, so this won't even affect me in the slightest.

[dejet]

Really still do not like the idea, so long as it stays for online only titles; I think I will live with the idea, but if EA starts tacking on extra money just to buy a game(force you to link it to a PSN/Gametag) then they can just go to hell.

I sorta see the idea, I still dont see what the point is though. This can go one of two ways. People buy more new games and they make more money.

They also risk screwing say gamestop's. I buy some old ass games from them sometimes, and something like forcing me to pay extra will just lead me down the road of not buying them at all.

The worst part I see in this is gamfly people, you will no get 0 use out of online games you rent if this turns out to work for EA and others follow it.

[volcanicweather]

The worst part I see in this is gamfly people, you will no get 0 use out of online games you rent if this turns out to work for EA and others follow it.

This, talk about a major dick move by EA - I stopped supporting EA a long time ago and will continue to not purchase any of their games even if they look decent

[Jotaru]

Auto dealers are able to sell their own used cars, game companies can not.

EA could buy GameStop (or they could try, not sure how that would work out financially. Or they could make their own used game business. Its not a matter of can't, its a matter of won't.

[dejet]

This, talk about a major dick move by EA - I stopped supporting EA a long time ago and will continue to not purchase any of their games even if they look decent

sadly I will still buy, I do tend to buy all new game games that look good. It really does sound bad for people who rent tho >.<

[Mizango]

Fuck yall bitches, give me my NCAA football and Madden and eat it. Where there's an Orton, I be sportin'.

This applies to practically my entire PC library, whats the big deal again?

[dejet]

Fuck yall bitches, give me my NCAA football and Madden and eat it. Where there's an Orton, I be sportin'.

This applies to practically my entire PC library, whats the big deal again?

I dont think I have seen a rented PC game in the last 15 years >.< I know I did rent one when I was like 5 but again that was 16 years back now...

Games for the PS3/360/wii have a far bigger rent market then the PC ever did.

[Kyo]

Really still do not like the idea, so long as it stays for online only titles; I think I will live with the idea, but if EA starts tacking on extra money just to buy a game(force you to link it to a PSN/Gametag) then they can just go to hell.

I sorta see the idea, I still dont see what the point is though. This can go one of two ways. People buy more new games and they make more money.

They also risk screwing say gamestop's. I buy some old ass games from them sometimes, and something like forcing me to pay extra will just lead me down the road of not buying them at all.

The worst part I see in this is gamfly people, you will no get 0 use out of online games you rent if this turns out to work for EA and others follow it.

You have to live with the idea either way, its not your decision to make. I mean honestly, how many people on this board actively buy sports games? Really the only threads we've had in the past for sports games, are MLB the show, Fifa and UFc, only one being an EA published title. The few people that do almost always buy them brand new.

Those who purchase the game used can buy an Online Pass for $10 or sign up for a free 7-day trial. The pass will be implemented for NCAA Football 11, NHL 11, Madden NFL 11, NBA 11, FIFA 11, and EA Sports MMA as well.

Also, people who buy used or rent have an option to buy the online pass or take advantage of the free trial, most people who rent wont play it more than 7 days anyway, you really should have read the entire article.

Kia covered pretty much everything, its practices like these that will keep good games coming out, supporting the developers. Personally, I never buy used games, so this wont effect me. Also, that comparison was extremely fucking silly.

This just like many other topics in the like, gives people the opportunity to complain and bitch about something that is out of their control, people tend to feel entitled for some reason about things they dont own. You want to show your opinion properly? Dont fucking buy the games, easy solution, but I guess bitching is a better option.

All if this is not directed at you Deject, so dont take it that way, just what I quoted.

[Kyo]

This, talk about a major dick move by EA - I stopped supporting EA a long time ago and will continue to not purchase any of their games even if they look decent

Sorry you missed out on Dead Space, Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2, Dante's Inferno and Battlefield 2, broseph.

[Cleverness]

The worst part I see in this is gamfly people, you will no get 0 use out of online games you rent if this turns out to work for EA and others follow it.

Says you can get a 7 day free trial, can use that to test out a game, would hope that idea extends to other companies when they decide to do this(cause they will).

For EA games specifically I don't see this as anything wrong. Unless you've never played Madden or anything before you know what to expect from them, same with Battlefield. These are games you generally buy new right when they come out to play online. On the offchance you are interested in trying out one of their franchise games cause you've never played it before, and no Demo is available, you have the option of buying it used or renting it from Gamefly and have 7 days to try it out to your liking. If you enjoyed it, just buy it and fork over $10 cause to this day I still pick up and play BF2 from time to time. If not, send it back or just enjoy the fact that you bought it used for more cheaper and aren't out alot of money now because of this new system.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.

[Correction]

"This is an important inflection point in our business because it allows us to accelerate our commitment to enhance premium online services to the entire robust EA SPORTS online community," said Peter Moore, President of EA SPORTS.

"GameStop is excited to partner with such a forward-thinking publisher as Electronic Arts," said Dan DeMatteo, Chief Executive Officer of GameStop Corp. "This relationship allows us to capitalize on our investments to market and sell downloadable content online, as well as through our network of stores worldwide."

I love press releases, so many words meaning absolutely nothing. They have absolutely nothing to show that these 10 dollars are going towards anything the player didn't get from older titles without a separate payment. Are they promising the next EA title will only cost $50 + the online pass or are games about to start costing people $70?

I can't wait for their code redemption servers to get DDoS'd on launch day for their next ten titles.

[Kyo]

The price point on these titles will stay the same, 59.99, the online pass is free for those buying the game new, the code will come inside the box.

[dejet]

The price point on these titles will stay the same, 59.99, the online pass is free for those buying the game new, the code will come inside the box.

ya, its aiming for someone who buys a used game. I guess this could be a good thing? say you buy a used game it runs $30~$40 + $10 for the online pass(it suck). What could happen and be good, if it sucks online (MGS:O ) the price might drop to $20~$30 and I dont buy the online pass ~_~ it really depends how they go about this. Will find out >.<


What really could be funny, is if someone goes out and buys it used the second day or so, and its price is still $55 ~_~ suckers!

[Devolver]

I'm ok with this really. If I'm buying a sports game used, I usually have no desire to play it online. But if I was to buy a game used that I had the urge to play online, I expect EA to use these funds to buff up their online section of gaming instead of just having lobbies.

I don't want to see money going to them that does not benefit the end user in some way.

[aru]

Yeah, not having access to additional content or the ability to play online is totally the same as something that stops you from legally driving a vehicle entirely. I can see where you're coming from but it's a silly comparison. Why does every market have to abide by the same rules? Unless this goes widescale it probably won't effect the used game market at all anyway. If it does, good for the devs. Most game devs take massive risks in making and releasing games, potentially losing millions if it doesn't sell exceptionally well and it often results in good companies closing down. I'm all for this, it is a much better alternative to the obtrusive DRM that some devs are trying to push nowadays. But I honestly can't even remember the last time I bought a used game anyway, so this won't even affect me in the slightest.

Yes, while I will admit that it is a somewhat silly comparison, it is still valid. For many games (LBP, CoD) the online component isn't just some "additional content", it is 90%+ of the game. So it would be more like disabling the engine unless you pay some arbitrary fee. For other games that have limited online components, why the hell is it ok to charge for limited online components? Ten bucks is 1/6 of a brand new game, an even bigger percentage of a used game, so for every six games that you sign up to play online you are missing out on playing another one.

I don't understand how you cannot see this becoming more widespread either. If other companies find EA's model to be profitable and the customers just take it in the ass without so much as a whimper, you bet others are going to hop on the bandwagon.

As for the devs taking a risk, well, outside of the "too big to fail" corporations, this applies to any company that creates anything so I don't know what makes video games so special that they can decide to milk their consumers. Saying that "every market doesn't need to abide from the same rules" is a cop-out from facing the fact that this is unprecedented in not just video games or even media, but ANY market in the US-and for good reason.
They have already sold the product, they aren't providing any additional services (at least in the case of PSN) so what, exactly, will people be paying for and how is it justifiable? It is a blatant money-grab aimed at people that are trying to save money.

[Baha]

Yes, while I will admit that it is a somewhat silly comparison, it is still valid. For many games (LBP, CoD) the online component isn't just some "additional content", it is 90%+ of the game. So it would be more like disabling the engine unless you pay some arbitrary fee. For other games that have limited online components, why the hell is it ok to charge for limited online components? Ten bucks is 1/6 of a brand new game, an even bigger percentage of a used game, so for every six games that you sign up to play online you are missing out on playing another one.

If you're buying a used car, and you know it's engine is busted, would you then still pay what you'd pay for a fully functional used car?
Private seller to private buyer will automatically adjust prices, if they don't, the seller is ripping you off, especially if online play is 90% of the game. Stores who buy and resell might try to make an extra ten bucks off of your back, but those stores tend to be a ripoff already anyways.
I can see it hurting sellers, which isn't really something to be indignant about, but buyers should be able to come out unscathed.
CE's with used codes tend to go for less, and used MMO discs go for peanuts, if they sell at all.

[Kiarax]

For many games (LBP, CoD) the online component isn't just some "additional content", it is 90%+ of the game. So it would be more like disabling the engine unless you pay some arbitrary fee.

Generally people will buy games like this at release if they have any intention of playing it online. The cost is not added on to the cost of the game if you buy the game new, so it doesn't even apply to them. If you are buying it used you'll still be saving money anyway, since you're not gonna pay $50 for a used copy if you plan to use the online. As for the additional content comment, I was referencing games that have already done this like Mass Effect 2. If you didn't play that, they added a few DLC missions (aswell as a bunch of random DLC armour and weapon/s) a while after release which people who got the code with the game new got for free, whereas people who didn't had to pay for the ability to download the "free" stuff.

For other games that have limited online components, why the hell is it ok to charge for limited online components? Ten bucks is 1/6 of a brand new game, an even bigger percentage of a used game, so for every six games that you sign up to play online you are missing out on playing another one.

What kind of limited online components are we talking here? Most games already charge for DLC anyway, in the instances EA have done this already they've actually released free stuff for once which they don't generally tend to do. If you're talking about actually playing online (I don't really see how that's "limited" though), it seems they're giving at the very least a 7 day trial for the games they are doing this for. If you play for even just a couple of hours each of those 7 you should already know whether or not it's worth dropping $10 on to play more.

I don't understand how you cannot see this becoming more widespread either. If other companies find EA's model to be profitable and the customers just take it in the ass without so much as a whimper, you bet others are going to hop on the bandwagon.

I didn't say I can't see it becoming widespread. I can definitely see some other "big" companies picking up on it, like Activision and Ubisoft (and the rest of EA's games, I guess). But there'll definitely be a few publishers who stay away from it. If the developers actually get a say in it there'll be plenty who don't go with it.

They have already sold the product, they aren't providing any additional services (at least in the case of PSN) so what, exactly, will people be paying for and how is it justifiable? It is a blatant money-grab aimed at people that are trying to save money.

I dunno what games you're playing. But the majority of games that actually have a sizable community (see: any games that will actually be effected like this in future if it spreads) constantly have bug fixes. I don't play sports games, but from what I understand I was under the impression that these were constantly patched with updated rosters and the like. And who knows, with this they could very well release DLC for cheaper than normal or perhaps even smaller DLC content for free. Chances of it happening are probably slim, but we still don't know exactly how this is gonna pan out. And I'm pretty sure they constantly have to put money in to keep the servers running, hence servers for their older games being shut down when the community dwindles. Even peer-to-peer games generally have matchmaking servers and the like set up.

[Corrderio]

I do think this is somewhat of a cheap assed move to make more money, however 10 bucks isn't that bad.

And besides that I hardly buy used anyway. Since from past experiences I prefer new since I don't need to worry about the game being damaged or something like that.

[dejet]

I do think this is somewhat of a cheap assed move to make more money, however 10 bucks isn't that bad.

And besides that I hardly buy used anyway. Since from past experiences I prefer new since I don't need to worry about the game being damaged or something like that.

This will not hurt me at all, as like you I hardly buy used as well. If I do buy used its a DS or PSP game(maybe a PS2 game once every 6 months now) but I really do not like the path we are going down. DLC bigger then ever. I dont mind DLC for games I really like, but sometimes it seems that its 5min of coding to make fast cash(and it is even the DLC I like)

Yes, yes this may not seemed linked to DLC at all, but it will lead everyone to doing this. I fear this might lead to a fee always for online play in the coming years.

As of right now it does no Harm to me, but it might harm some people who gamefly games, or blockbuster(~_~ right) It is going to have to be a wait and see; to understand how good or bad this might be to gamers.