EA To Launch Online Pass Program

ceedot
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 9:51:49 PM
Reply

wow, what will EA think of next.

3 up, 0 down

SmokeyPSD
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 4:02:36 AM

I still agree, the gamecube was a poor system. MGS Twin Snakes is a terrible remake, I don't want Snake turned into Neo. and Resident Evil 4 has the great content on the ps2.

Everything else, I've grown out of.

1 up, 0 down

Scarecrow
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 9:54:20 PM
Reply

lol

When was the last time I bought an EA game?
Oh yes, MVP Baseball 2004 for the Gamecube

Poor EA

1 up, 3 down

MartyRules
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 9:57:56 PM

Ewww you had a gamecube?Anything that didnt have Mario or Zelda or Samus blew so hard!!!

2 up, 4 down

kraygen
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 2:13:56 AM

Gamecube had some amazing games you couldn't get anywhere else. So I must disagree with you, sorry.

2 up, 1 down

Dancemachine55
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 3:05:31 AM

MartyRules...

did you ever play Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem?

Or Resident Evil 4 when it first came out?

How about Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes?

Then there's Starfox Adventures.

The massive list of Mario games made it well worth to get a Cube. There was Mario Sunshine, Mario Kart Double Dash, Mario Strikers, Super Smash Bros. Melee, and there was Zelda Twilight Princess and Windwaker, Metroid Prime 1 and 2.

And Pikmin. Viewtiful Joe. Animal Crossing.

Connectivity with the GBA was a first. It didn't have anything outstanding, but it was a great start.

The Gamecube was highly underrated. It did so much, but Sony did more. And Halo was a powerhouse seller in itself for the original Xbox.

I'm surprised the Xbox sold well at all since it only had a third of the number of good games compared to the Cube, and only one twentieth the games PS2 had.

Last edited by Dancemachine55 on 5/11/2010 3:08:52 AM

5 up, 1 down

sawao_yamanaka
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 9:28:07 AM

Don't forget the re remake that was amazing!

0 up, 0 down

MartyRules
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 6:18:31 PM

Most of that stuff was on ps2 also, so you make no point and the last star fox I liked was on the Super Nintendo

1 up, 1 down

GamingBuddha
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 10:05:08 PM
Reply

I have a feeling that this is going to stir some people the wrong way. I understand that they don't make any money off of used titles but I think charging people who bought a used game $10 to play online is a little harsh. Especially since most of the times the non-current EA Sports titles are usually less than that...

Last edited by GamingBuddha on 5/10/2010 10:09:23 PM

2 up, 1 down

dachemists
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 @ 10:56:02 PM

EA is stupid, first of all, if i buy a copy of say madden, i can play online with that copy, if i sell it to gamestop, the next person cant play online even tho i bought the game, i paid EA to play online when i bought madden, if im not playing it, someone else will, that same copy is already paid, and should have the right to be played online cuz i already paid 59.99

EA wants to pocket my 59.99 and someones 64.99 (54.99 + 10 for EA online fee) from gamestop for the same game i already paid for, if someone else buys the game will i get a $10 refund cuz i dont want to play madden online???????

if course not!!!!! how stupid of me

gamestop will have to lower the TIV of games in order to sell used ea multiplayer games (MOH)

0 up, 0 down

Milonakis
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 10:10:29 PM
Reply

EActivision. Sucking money out of you in ways you never realized were possible. *Insert Joke about sponsoring Tiger Woods here*

5 up, 5 down

BTNwarrior
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 10:14:56 PM
Reply

as much as people dislike EA I know people absolutely loath gamestop. So this is just one step EA is taking to stop gamestop

7 up, 0 down

Scarecrow
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 10:24:56 PM

In that respect I like this move

6 up, 0 down

Nynja
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:17:09 PM

What happens when I want to let a friend borrow the game?

This smells very bad...

2 up, 0 down

maxpontiac
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 10:21:29 PM
Reply

Reality is, EA is correct. They are running a business.

I buy my games new (99% of them at least) so this doesn't mean much to me.

Plus, I would rather see this then have to pay for PSN.

7 up, 2 down

kraygen
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 2:15:33 AM

I too, don't buy used. If I want it cheaper I can wait until a new copy is $20 and I know I'm the only one who has handled it and where it's been.

2 up, 0 down

Highlander
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 10:21:33 PM
Reply

Hang on folks, before you grab the pitchforks and torches, stop for a minute and think about what they are saying here.

If you buy a game, brand new, you get this for free - because you paid EA for the game. If you buy the game *used* EA gets nothing. Let me repeat that, when you buy the game used from GameStop (for example), EA get's NOTHING from you, the purchaser. So, why should they provide you server capacity or content (which costs EA money to provide) if you did not pay them for the game?

This plan allows purchasers of used games to gain the same extras that purchasers of the game *new* get as part of the price of the game. The alternative would of course to block purchasers of used games from using the online service at all.

Personally, that seems very, very fair. If you buy the game used and don't pay the maker of the game a single penny for it, why should they be under any obligation to allow you to play it online? You access their servers and updates. That costs money.

OK, so you won't like this, I know that, but it is a fair solution.

23 up, 7 down

tes37
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 10:30:25 PM

Everyone who likes getting paid for their hard work and talent should agree with EA.

16 up, 6 down

Qubex
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 12:10:18 AM

Yes... I agree, even though my wallet doesn't!

Q!

"play. experience.enjoy"

8 up, 3 down

Lemon_Saint
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 12:10:41 AM

Hold on a second now ...

EA already received the money for the game they sold. If it's a question of taking up server space, wouldn't the individual who bought it used just be replacing the original owner's spot? It's not as if the original owner can get back in and play the game online without the game. The server won't be flooded with people who haven't purchased the game, just with a few people who have been "passed the torch" so to speak. It's a spot that has already been paid for.

As far as downloadable content, EA's recent "The Sabouteur" came with a download code for content titled "The Midnight Show", (it was a once-usable code which expired upon input). Only if you bought it new could you get this with the game. Now, a used purchaser can nab it online, (for a nominal charge). Who's to say that this won't lead to paying for online access AS WELL AS paying for downloadable content separately?

We should look at what is really going on here. EA is trying to make extra money where it shouldn't be. I buy most games new and rarely if ever play online, but it wasn't always like that. When I was younger, my parents couldn't afford new games at the rate I wanted them, (1 or 2 a year was a surprise). If it wasn't for a part time job and used game stores, my hobby would have gone the way of every fad that has come and gone. Used game stores keep this industry going. Could you imagine ten years from now trying to find a copy of GTA4 new?! Hell, try to find a copy of the original GTA for PSOne new ... not easy.

This is a power play by a greedy corporation ... nothing else.

17 up, 3 down

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 12:54:00 AM

Lemon_Saint: I think it's a slightly different issue for EA (and all other publishers). If GameStop sells a game 8 different times, it's still the property of the publisher and developer; why should the retailer get every penny of that profit?

Granted, they should get the majority because they are doing the work; they're taking in the trade-in and putting it out for sale, and they also have their own lifetime warranty for used titles. But nevertheless, it remains the property of the publisher...if the product is sold again and again, I don't see why only the retailer should benefit, regardless of the situation.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 5/11/2010 12:54:36 AM

11 up, 7 down

Gabriel013
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 1:06:48 AM

But Ben, isn't that the way will all other resale items? Whenever I've bought ANYTHING else second hand, I've not had to pay a fee to use something the original purchaser received. I'm leaning more towards Lemon in that EA have already made their money at the original point of sale.

What does it matter to EA if I buy new and play the game for 2 years or the game passes on to 4 different people in that same period. It doesn't cost them any more.

As for losing revenue from the sale of 2nd hand rather than new; well, there's a reason someone is buying 2nd hand in the first place..

11 up, 4 down

Highlander
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 1:28:29 AM

@Lemon & Gabriel

That's all fine and well, but EA isn't charging you for the used game, they're charging you for the extra stuff available online which they maintain at cost to them.

As for the topic of used games, as it happens I think that GameStop's used game business is not good at all for an industry where games last less that 10 hours. Someone can buy the game, finish it within a week, trade it in and then that same used copy can be sold and traded two or three more times (if it's a really popular, yet short game). The developer/ publisher get paid one time for potentially 4 sales. That's neither fair, nor right.

However what compounds the problem is that when a game includes a major online component, the publisher has to maintain servers to host games, manage statistics and host patches and DLC. All of that costs money, and the fact that you paid GameStop $55 for the latest and greatest game does nothing for the publisher. Why shouldn't they charge you for access to their service? You've not paid them any other way.

13 up, 4 down

WolfCrimson
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 1:54:48 AM

I agree with Lemon_saint and gabriel. EA should have already gotten their money from the person who bought their game new. That person bought the right to own the game, and the right to use the online (both which will be termed under 'property'). The game (+all features that come with it) has become the property of the person who bought it. If the first person decides to sell it, he should be the one getting the money, not EA. If he sells it to GameStop, then it's GameStop's property. And if Gamestop sell it to another person, then it is that person's property. The exchange of goods occurred between the people mentioned, EA does not factor into this anywhere.

P.S. But what GameStop does is government-approved highway robbery, so it's best to buy it straight off of the first person.

11 up, 4 down

jaybiv
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 1:59:33 AM

@highlander. Retail would catch a cold if there were no used game market two ways: 1) those who buy games and sell them would be less likely to purchase a game they are on the fence on; 2) those who like to buy used games may not gravitate to a new game purchase.

The used market is beneficial for any industry because cost is the number one barrier for most consumers. Do you ever see millionaires or celebrities shopping at Walmart? No, they don't have to. Granted Walmart is not a second hand store, but they outta be with their mantra of delivering the lowest price on Earth.

EA is basically trying to double dip and are using tried and true snake speak to justify their actions. "Let's demonize the folks who buy used games." It's wrong, immature and unethical in the sense that they are pointing the finger at some folks whose only "crime" is being born without economic stability in their home.

EA should consider themselves lucky for they can safely produce PS3 games without having to worry about bootlegs and unauthorized Internet distributions. I bet the music and movie industries would trade places with EA in a heartbeat.

8 up, 5 down

Highlander
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 2:10:15 AM

Folks, the used game argument aside, the buyer of the used game has not paid for the online service, just the game disc. EA is charging the used game owner for the online service.

In my opinion the practice of retailers taking old games in trade for less than 50% of the original retail price, and reselling them at 90% of the full retail price is a complete rip off. EA and other game developers/publishers have every right - in my opinion - to be pissed off at GameStop and others.

9 up, 9 down

jaybiv
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 2:44:03 AM

That's what EA wants you to believe. EA advertises the online services on the back of their games, yet they want to force some folks to pay extra when EA recouped those costs when the game was initially sold.

This is the first step in unbundling the online services from the actual game. Much like what Sony is trying to do with its PSN. EA is too smart to try a full frontal attack and charge everyone. So why not demonize the used gamers for a couple of years then hit everyone else when they least expect it? Laugh now or cry later. It's just another example of the nickel and diming of America.

9 up, 2 down

Cavan
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 2:58:53 AM

yes but highlander, the retailer then takes the risk, as they end up with a bunch of old games that they cant sell, they have to make enough off the games they can re sell, to cover the cost of the games that they cant, for example i go into Game (am british) and there is a ton of assassins creed 1games in there that they cant shift.

second point sorry i cant agree with the whole it costs money for server space etc, as EA will assign a certain amount of server space per game they sell, its not as if the original buyer copies the game then sells it back to the retailer allowing him to still have his game, and to be sell it, that dosnt happen so EA still has the one server space being used, if you bought a game off a friend you wouldnt expect to have topay E.A again because it wasnt you who purchased the game.
when i was younger me and all my firends used to borrow games all the time, this would mean kids cant borrow games and go online with them as they would have to pay 10 dollas for a pass this just isnt on.
nds just think what this will do to rentals? you wanna rent a game for the weekend and it costs 10 dollas as well as the rental... i dont think so, so thats all EA rentals out the way, This just stinks of EA wanting to get paid twice for selling only one game, so whats the sifference with ford (or any car manufacturer) saying if you buy a second hand car you have to pay us 1000 dollas as we dont make any money on the garage dealer selling the car a second time?? its just rediculous really and i am sure this wont catch on.

10 up, 2 down

JackC8
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 7:25:28 AM

Lemon Saint - one thing you have to keep in mind is that if EA sells 2 million copies of a game, those people aren't going to play it online forever. They'll move on to other games. So after a while there might only be 500,000 people playing it online. But because of used sales, new people are playing it, and EA still has to provide servers to host 2 million of them, even though 1.5 million never paid EA any money.

3 up, 7 down

sawao_yamanaka
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 9:27:03 AM

I'm with you all the way highlander. People who buy used copies when the game just came out they save themselves what $5! Really that's not worth it at all. I would rather buy it new or at a reduced price down the road from the company. I do dislike gamestop a lot if I will buy a used game ill go elsewhere.

4 up, 3 down

Lemon_Saint
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 2:34:48 PM

So what you are saying *Jack C8* is that EA is counting on it's purchasers to stop playing its games at some point ... does that sound like the business model of a corporation that has it's consumer's best interests in mind?

Look, everyone seems pretty divided on this point. One commenter alluded to the music industry, and I know too well about that. It really sucks when you can SoundScan an area you are playing in on tour and see that only a few hundred copies of your cd were sold in that city. Yet, there are more kids in the audience singing along the words to your song ... how do they know it so well if they didn't purchase the album? But, in that sense, that doesn't affect the artist monetarily at all, (the artist who wrote and recorded the song gets only 1 or 2 cents from any album sold under a major record contract). So who gets that money? The backing corporation does.

Which leads me to my point ... people here are talking about all the money the hard working people are losing out on because of used game sales ... rubbish! These people are hired on a salary/hourly basis, (sometimes with bonuses). Do you really think any of them would get any of that money post sale? Will any of them see any of the revenue from this ten dollar charge on used games? Who do you think this would really be benefitting?

Corporations are in business to make money ... why there is any loyalty to any corporation on this or any other site is beyond me. Buy, (or don't) buy their products ... leave it at that.

6 up, 1 down

Nynja
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:30:03 PM

Does anyone know what the deal is with the Pass? How is it linked, to the PSN account or console?

News Flash: Ford has issued a statement stating they are going to require used car buyers to purchase a keycode in order to start the car. Used car buyers will still be able to access all other features the vehicle has to offer, but will not be able to start the motor without the keycode. This keycode can be purchased for under 17% of the retail cost of the vehicle from you local Ford dealer.

See how stupid that sounds when you apply it elsewhere?

I said it before, that I understand both sides' valid argument. I do work for a software development company who is also battling piracy. The problem here, EA is just going to look like the bad guy. It's not just used game buyers or sellers who are effected, the "honest" consumer will be too. Forget renting games. Forget borrowing games from friends. Forget about sharing your game in a household with multiple gamers/consoles.

There is just way too much valid uses lost with this move.

Now I'm waiting for Activision to say; "EA just shot their consumer in the foot."

Last edited by Nynja on 5/11/2010 5:31:08 PM

1 up, 1 down

main_event05
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:50:48 PM

ok, they charge for the use of the servers. so by that logic can i expect to pay less for the game if i never play it online?

4 up, 0 down

AirplanePeanuts
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 6:12:53 PM

1. EA shuts down their servers from last year's game pretty soon after they release the new year's game. When you're buying an EA Sports title, you're buying a game that will only even have working servers for just over a year.

2. They aren't running much of servers anyways. On the XBox side at least, matches are hooked up by XBL's completely abstracted matchmaking layer and games are peer to peer. They might have more work to do over for Sony's more flexible service, but the games are still peer to peer. In other words, your average hook up of an EA Sports game is about as demanding as visiting the EA site for a while.

3. EA already has a solid stable of alternate revenue streams on all of their EA Sports titles. Even the games' cheats often contain product placement.

4. Yes, if a game is resold the original creator doesn't get any money for it. Which is the same thing if I sell anything else I own. Once you buy a copy of something, that thing is yours, to do with as you please. If EA got $60 for the game up front, for servers that run for only a year, I think it's pretty stupid to ask for someone who gets that copy second hand to pony up again.

An argument for this kind of fee could be made in certain circumstances, I guess, but this isn't really one of them. Meanwhile legitimate customers are left with yet another pain in the ass to deal with before they can get online.

4 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Thursday, May 13, 2010 @ 9:31:04 AM

lol, this is like an argument between a union rep and the organization they work for. "I deserve more!" "You deserve what you earn." etc. etc.

Since I hate unions, I'm with Highlander and Ben on this one. Quite frankly, I don't understand the full logic, if there is any, on the alternative.

What you guys are suggesting, essentially, is that if I buy a used cable modem distributed by Rogers, I should have free access to Rogers' internet service.

That's so silly!

0 up, 1 down

THE NTMIDTR
Thursday, May 13, 2010 @ 5:10:18 PM

You make valid points... and I am all for EA making a profit. Consider this... EA isn't paying for the initial buyer to play the game after they trade it in. The 'new' player has just replaced the 'old' player.

This is EA wanting a larger piece of the pie.

I am not against it, I agree that in other areas such as homes, cars, etc. there are fees... I just don't want the argument for it skewed by EA acting like "we are losing so much money". They are not... they just are not making as much as they could because of Gamestop type programs.

What SHOULD HAPPEN is the EA's fee the RESELLERS not the secondary customer! Gamestop makes money hand over fist ripping off consumers with low trade in values. Gamestop should pay this fee out of what they profit from us, not us! This is why I don't trade games in. It is a racket and I refuse to lose such a large amount of money on a game I no longer want just because Gamestop says my $60 investment is worth $25 (or less) shortly after I have all the fun with it I wanted... and then sell it the next day for $40!

EA... send your bill to GameStop!

1 up, 0 down

THE NTMIDTR
Thursday, May 13, 2010 @ 10:48:15 PM

Furthermore... for every user EA anticipates being on their servers (assuming a 1:1 ratio of discs manufactured versus discs sold/in use) AND even assuming ALL buyers use the online service... where is EA losing money?

EA made their money on the new game sales. No one else is making EA discs are they? So... EA made their money on every disc they sold. They sell one million, then they need to plan on one million spots online.

Just because you bought it used... EA got their money at the initial sale... Gamestop created a market for themselves/gamers. While I don't particularly care for how GS does things... they are not costing EA revenue except from those who buy used versus not having a way to buy it used and being forced to pay full price from only EA. As was mentioned before... I sell mine to a buddy, therefore I just cost EA a sale?

This does not and cannot EVER effect online spots for players!

BTW, how much does it cost to maintain this service? A service EA uses to help with sales... As I said before, EA makes it to where every customer has a spot online. There can NEVER be more spots EA must accommodate than discs they have produced/sold.

Some of you are trying to over-think this...
The bottom line some guy started a little business called Gamestop with a few bucks and a dream... something you all would seem to applaud... but now the big corp. is crying foul because this store costs them some sales (show me some solid numbers on EA's loss all you business tycoons writing in here) and they have devised a plan to recoup some of those lost revenues... at the expense of US ALL (providing we did NOT buy the game new and get the code). I bought mine new... as I usually do. The video games I own that were bought used were gifts from my Mom! Is EA telling my Mom to fork over more money if she wants her son to get to do all the things written on the back of the game case?

1 up, 0 down

mike rlz
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 10:24:19 PM
Reply

i play NHL 10 all the time, but I gotta laugh at people with XBL who will have to put this on top of it

12 up, 0 down

DeathOfChaos
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 11:40:27 PM

I was thinking the same exact thing when I first seen this up, lol.

5 up, 1 down

tes37
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 10:26:28 PM
Reply

I'm not a supporter of the used games industry and I don't blame EA for doing this. I refuse to let GameStop make any money off me.

GameStop rips you off by offering a low price for the game. Then they rip off the person who buys it by doubling the price they paid for it. And the developer gets ripped off every time the game is resold.

People who buy used games for $5 less than the original price should seriously reconsider it and give that money to the developer. Supporting the developer sometimes leads to getting free dlc as their way of saying thank you.

13 up, 1 down

BikerSaint
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 10:34:54 PM
Reply

This a separate $10 fee for each game & not just a one-time fee for all combined EA games, right???

Nope, either way, I smell raw-deal stench heading EA's way!!!!!!

And what happens if you buy a older sports title used & also buy that $10 EA Pass too, & then they stop supporting that game & they shut down that game's server right soon afterward???

As for me, I don't do MP modes anyway, so I'm going to take a PASS on the Pass altogether!!!!

FYI, EA's not the first to do this crap either.

I was just at the PS Store a 1/2 hour ago checking out the add-on page for the PSP.
I clicked onto the SOCOM Fireteam Bravo 3, and found that they're also doing this crap too if you bought the game used.

But, they're calling it an "Entitlement add-on" & they're charging twice as much, at $19.95 for it

FTF

5 up, 2 down

BattleFox21
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 10:50:04 PM
Reply

I have to agree with EA. It's like "I fix up and sell a home to Joe and Sally comes to collect the money for herself, meanwhile I was the one who put all the work into it and effort into it. It's not fair to them and not fair to everyone else. Reason: The gaming industry is losing money because of this and so the price of games must go up. In order to keep the prices down there should be a fee paid to the companies for each game sold more than they receive currently.

6 up, 3 down

Gabriel013
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 1:12:42 AM

That's not valid.

What it is actually like is that you do up the home and sell it on at top whack.
The new owner then decides to sell it on again but YOU want another slice of the pie.
All because the 3rd purchaser finds it more economical to buy for 60% original value from the 2nd purchaser than to buy from YOU for 100% again.

Videogames aren't (and shouldn't) be immune to natural asset depreciation principles.

5 up, 3 down

Highlander
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 2:15:29 AM

Except, you don't own the game, only the disc. The game is a licensed software product. The transferability of that license is limited and does not cover the online content.

It's more like the home owner selling the home to someone who then expects that the cable service will continue for free because the previous owner already had it. Obviously the cable company isn't going to play ball, neither will any of the other services like water, gas, phone or electricity. They'll each want to charge a service fee for their service. It doesn't matter to them who bought the house, nor how many times the house is sold, they still want their fees from the new owner.

This is the same thing. EA isn't profiting by the additional game sales, but just because you buy a used game, that doesn't entitle you to any or all online components. That's an additional service that the service provider (EA) will require payment for.

7 up, 3 down

PAKINIPS
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:12:18 AM

@highlander, that would only hold up if they charged for online and then of course they're going to want continued payments.
If the previous owner paid the electricity company for a years electricity but the house was sold 6 months later the electricity would continue for the rest of the year regardless of who owns the house. When the game is bought you're paying for online with it as they dont charge month/yearly fees therefore whoever the owner of tha game sells it to is entitled to online as well as the previous owner payed for it.

NB I've never bought a house but id assume tnats how it works?

7 up, 1 down

Underdog15
Thursday, May 13, 2010 @ 10:32:24 AM

Except there's also a transfer of property charge, a change of address charge, and don't forget, if you're a first time home-buyer, you'll have to pay a huge deposit for a lot of those services. Even if the service has been paid for.

There's always extra expenses when you purchase a home that you won't have to pay again.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 5/13/2010 10:37:39 AM

0 up, 0 down

Sunni_Boi
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 10:56:17 PM
Reply

I have no problem with this

6 up, 8 down

Scarecrow
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 11:04:58 PM
Reply

Yeah, I want to recant

This is a great move
Stick to it to Gamestop EA!

I hope more publishers do the same

6 up, 5 down

OtisFeelgood
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 11:06:53 PM
Reply

The last EA game I bought was Dante's Inferno and that's going to remain that way.

7 up, 4 down

airwedge1
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 11:26:00 PM
Reply

I think the reasoning that EA gets nothing for a re-sold game is completely flawed. That is like saying I pay 10 grand for a car, and then re-sell it for 5 grand to someone else, but then they have to pay the manufacturer 100 dollars to turn the ignition on.

EA does get money from each used game. They got their cut of the original $60!. The
$60 pays for the cost of hosting the services for the duration of the game until it loses value. Whether it is Joe, or John should not matter.

7 up, 2 down

tes37
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 11:44:40 PM

Publishers such as EA don't suffer as bad from the effects of the used game market as developers do. They draw revenue from multiple games. What EA is doing will be very beneficial to the game developer.

4 up, 4 down

Highlander
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 1:45:53 AM

@airwedge

I see you belong to the something for nothing crowd. In my experience, you get what you pay for. If you pay for nothing, you will receive it in abundance.

7 up, 7 down

airwedge1
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 8:35:37 AM

How is it getting something for nothing? The original buyer paid $60. The used buyer pays $50. They both paid. A used copy of anything is worth less then a brand new copy. And no I am not a fan of getting something for nothing, like our US government social programs stealing money from one person and giving it to another.

4 up, 3 down

Underdog15
Thursday, May 13, 2010 @ 10:35:58 AM

Ew, politics!

1 up, 0 down

DeathOfChaos
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 11:49:21 PM
Reply

I for one, don't play sports games. So if this stays on sports games, so what, I'll never play it. But if they put this crap on The Sims 3 when it comes to the PS3, then they can forget me buying Sims 3 for the PS3. What if I don't have the money for that particular game at the time, but when I do end up having the money for it, there are no more new copies of that game anywhere? I'm not going to pay an extra $10 because I couldn't afford their game in the first place. If I could afford the game in the first place, I would have the money to pay the extra $10 to play online.

IMHO, it's a decision that may make or break them. Also, why does everyone hate Gamestop so much? Everytime I go to Gamestop, I end up carrying on a meaningful conversation about gaming with the people that work there and I save money by buying a used game. Hell, thanks to Gamestop, Leona Lewis wont get any money from me whenever I get money to buy Final Fantasy XIII. I don't quite like the game, but I am going to get Agito and Versus, so why not get XIII since their stories will somehow interact with one another? And yes, I would rather give my money straight to Gamestop than to have even a penny of my money get handed to that wretched woman.

But yeah, just sounds like an excuse for EA to make more money off of a game they've already made money from.

5 up, 2 down

Qubex
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 12:13:15 AM

Yip, it's a dog eat dog world out there.... everyone is trying to make money from everyone else... in which ever way they can...

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

3 up, 1 down

DeathOfChaos
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 12:35:41 AM

But in this case, they'll be making money off their own self. What about someone who buys the game used, pays $10 to play online, ends up taking the game back so they can trade in for a new game, and then a new person buys that game again. In just that, they would have made $80 off of that single game, and then it would probably happen even more times than that. So really, they're just milking their own product for more and more money. What's really sad is that almost everyone here supports this...that's REALLY sad...

5 up, 1 down

Highlander
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 1:44:29 AM

@Death of Chaos

Your math doesn't add up.

Here is how it looks to EA. Two scenarios...

A) Madden NFL '11, 3 buyers (all new copies) = $180

B) Madden NFL 1 New, 2 used purchasers = $60

All three users in each scenario want to use the online service which costs money to run. EA has received no payment from 2 of the three users in B), but in A) they have been paid in full. This is how used game sales can hurt a publisher.

In scenario B) the game has had three users, and the game retailer has resold the game three times, twice for pure profit. But EA only get's paid for the firs sale of the game when it is 'new'.

Since it still costs EA to provide Madden NFL '11 online access, in Scenario B) EA loses out twice because they get no revenue from selling the game, and they have to provide three times the network service. That's simply not fair, and wrong.

EA want's a scenario C)

C) Madden NFL 1 New, 2 used purchasers = $60, plus 2 online access charges $20 = $80.

EA is still losing out big time on the used sales, but the additional online charge does at least let them cover their costs.

I don't see how anyone could describe this as milking their product. If anything, EA and other publishers are being robbed blind by GameStop and other used game retailers.

9 up, 4 down

WolfCrimson
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 2:13:33 AM

Highlander, you're forgetting that they're USED games (where's the italics function when you need it?), which means that they have already been bought as new, and EA got their money from it. They've still made the 3 sales of the 3 game copies. And they're not suffering from having to maintain online servers for those 3 people, simply because the others who have sold the game don't access their online servers anymore. It's like 1+1+1 = 3-1-1+1+1 = 3.

7 up, 4 down

Highlander
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 2:17:29 AM

Sorry WolfCrimson, I really hate to be this blunt, but that's complete BS. I hope you never run a business, because if that is the extent of your business logic and reason, you won't last a year.

If three people buy the game new, then EA sees all three purchases. If one person buys the game new and then trades it and it's subsequently bought twice more, EA only sees the first purchase not the second and third re-purchase of the same copy. Not only that but they still have to provide the online service used by all three gamers despite only seeing one actual sale. Your logic and understanding is faulty my friend.

Last edited by Highlander on 5/11/2010 2:19:58 AM

7 up, 5 down

jaybiv
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 2:19:18 AM

@highlander. Your logic is flawed. You are looking at the used game market as if Gamestop and similar companies are the only sellers. I'm willing to bet more games are sold to friends and through ebay/craigslist than through second hand retailers. EA doesn't get a cut if I sell my Madden to my brother for $20 bucks, and that hasn't stopped them from becoming the largest game publisher on the planet.

Also, we cannot assume that someone who bought a used game would buy a new game. There are many reasons why the used market is alive and well. Some people: refuse to pay full price; have limited resources so they buy and return used games to stretch their budgets; like the liberal return policy on used games; etc.

Companies that know how to put value into their product offerings are not affected by a used market. This is something that EA struggles with, especially with their sports games. Consumers are starting to get fed up with minor updates to annual sports games at full price and it's showing in their annual reports.

7 up, 2 down

WolfCrimson
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 2:21:36 AM

Highlander, I'm sorry you see it that way. But if 'business logic and reason' consists of making up ploys to get extra undeserved money and then justifying it, then I don't want to be a business owner.Thankfully, this isn't the case where I live.*

Edit-
*Scratch that, upon further thought this also happens around here, although less. Bummer.

Saw you edit your post. 1+1+1=3-1-1+1+1=3. It also goes for the online service. The mere fact that the game has been sold means the original buyer does not have access to the online service anymore. Think of it this way: the total number of game copies sold new equals the total number of people playing online, since anybody wanting to play a specific game online need the game disc. And since all sold game copies have undergone a new full-priced purchase at some point in their existence, then EA isn't short-changed.

Last edited by WolfCrimson on 5/11/2010 2:30:07 AM

8 up, 2 down

Highlander
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 2:34:58 AM

@Wolf

In my opinion, you are very, very wrong. Business just doesn't work the way you are describing, service provision does not work as you describe. The repurchasing of software is not equivalent to the purchase of a fixed asset like a home or car. But, I'll argue no further because in my opinion the discussion is separating from reality at light speed.

6 up, 6 down

WolfCrimson
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 2:49:03 AM

Heh, then the argument becomes whether or not should purchased software get such special treatment. I still see it as property of the buyer. If it's not, then what's the point of paying for it?

6 up, 2 down

PAKINIPS
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:26:55 AM

Dammit, i find myself agreeing with both sides, i dont know what to think of this story. Good news or bad news

3 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Thursday, May 13, 2010 @ 11:10:35 AM

Guys, I'm sorry to tell you Highlander is dead on, although I feel like he is having trouble fully enunciating the entirety of the issue at hand. Certainly this whole concept has a massive effect on the industry.

Like... frig... if you buy a service/game and after 2 months decide you are bored and never want to play online again, that's your own damn problem. The transfer of property in the real world, does not work that way. Yes, you can buy a used car and not pay the original dealer a cent, however, if your car is still under warranty, (say 60,000 kilometers and 5 years isn't reached) and you buy it USED, you don't get access to those free repairs guaranteed by the car dealer. Why? Because you aren't the original buyer.

Businesses that allow warranties to pass on from user to user are involved in exceptional customer service. It is certainly not a requirement OR the norm. So yeah, you can use that car and drive it into the ground and get great use from it, but the original dealer washes their hands clean of you if it's second hand.

This buying a house crap is rubbish. There are tonnes of fees involved in land transfer, and even if the old owner paid all bills for months, you still have transfer fees and deposits you must pay. And you can't compare mortgages, because that's lending and a whole other issue.

Here's your crappy argument: You buy a game, sell it, and I buy it used. Since you already paid for the game, EA got payment for the online access, so I should be able to play now. That's crap! That theory looks great on it's own, but everything EVERYTHING has a cause and effect relationship, and at the end of the day, EA NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS to turn a profit. They are NOT a non-profit and they are not interested in merely maintaining service.

If you ask me, if 2.5 million different people want to access a feature that has extra cost to the provider, they should have 2.5 million people pay a tiny amount of money to maintain that cost. Not 1.5 million. The PSN can make it work for free because they have countless other measures of offsetting cost.

Write that phrase down: Offsetting cost.

Business thrives by offsetting cost. EA and other dev's have no way of offsetting costs. They don't have their own advertising revenue, they don't have their own online store, they don't have this weird PS HOME thing... Their service is a direct trade. Direct trades must be profitable with every transaction. Sony PS3 offsets the cost of selling PS3's (they LOSE money) through publishing rights on games, the PSN store, etc. EA does NOT.

Look, you simply cannot compare apples to oranges. Traffic on these games must diminish over time if there is not a renewed source of income to maintain it or other method of offsetting costs. You can argue about how devs should want traffic to increase, which is true, but they would only want that if there was income to maintain and sustain profitability.

You folks and your black-and-white business models are truly as Highlander says it is... FLAWED. The gray areas involved and the need to offset cost (memorized that yet?) are so prevalent that they cannot be ignored.

To me, it really does seem like the getting something for nothing mentality. If you ask me, if you pay $50 for a used game, you've been had. Perhaps you deserve to be a little screwed over.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 5/13/2010 11:16:34 AM

0 up, 0 down

Akuma07
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 12:12:31 AM
Reply

I think this is a great idea. One of the best EA has had.

I wish all publishers could do this.

It stops all those greedy retailers, I personally NEVER buy buy pre-owned games, doesnt sit well to own something someone els has owned before me.

Pre-owned games were sucking money out of the industry, and alot of it according to what i read about a year ago, way to stick to em!

6 up, 4 down

DeathOfChaos
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 12:36:43 AM
Reply

What about someone who buys the game used, pays $10 to play online, ends up taking the game back so they can trade in for a new game, and then a new person buys that game again. In just that transaction, they would have made $80 off of that single game, and then it would probably happen even more times after that. So really, they're just milking their own product for more and more money. What's really sad is that almost everyone here supports this...that's REALLY sad...

6 up, 3 down

Highlander
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 1:37:00 AM

That's false math.

If three people purchase the game, and two of them buy it used, then the current math for EA is that they get only 1/3 of the revenue for the game. Nearly two thirds of the revenue for the game go to GameStop (or whoever sells the game used. So instead of selling three copies of the game for $60 each, EA only get's one sale, despite the fact that three people bought the game. Had all three people bought the game from EA that would have been $180 in sales. By adding this $10 fee for access to the online servers by purchasers of the used game, EA is at least getting a slice of the pie. In your example, they now see perhaps $80 sales revenue for three buyers of the game. Considering the actual number of sales, EA is still $100 down on the deal, despite the online charge for used games.

I'm not sure why EA is the bad guy here, nor am I seeing why people expect EA to provide online access, updates and DLC free to people who have (from EA's point of view) not paid for the game. After all when you buy a used game, the publisher get's nothing, so from their point of view, you have *not* paid for the game you are using.

Incidentally, used game sales do not count towards game sales numbers either....

6 up, 6 down

DeathOfChaos
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 8:55:53 AM

So, $60+$10+$10 doesn't equal to $80? And besides, from what you've just said, they get money from the used game, which would mean that particular game would have give them above $80, just for that single game. You just want to try and side with EA, and all your logic is so stupid that backing yourself up more and more makes you sound more and more ridiculous. You keep telling me my calculations are wrong, but then you tell me they still get profit from the used game.

Here's a quote from you to justify;
"If three people purchase the game, and two of them buy it used, then the current math for EA is that they get only 1/3 of the revenue for the game."

And we're not talking about the price for the game, we're talking about the price they'll charge you to get an online pass. So you mean to tell me that buying an online pass FROM EA, 1/3 of that money will somehow be magically redirected to Gamestop? Now YOUR logic is a bit far fetched. Do you even listen to yourself when you talk?

2 up, 3 down

WolfCrimson
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 11:53:15 AM

@DeathOfChaos: Calm down, that's not how people discuss things around here. Highlander did not insult you or anything, so there's no need to become that offensive, bro.

2 up, 0 down

Highlander
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 4:56:02 PM

@Death of Chaos

I have not backed away from any part of my argument, my logic is sound. You can call the logic stupid if you like, but calling me stupid is pointless.

The extra charge for the 'online pass' is very much related to the purchase price of the game and whether the game is purchased new or not. When you buy used game from a 3rd party, you are not a customer of EA. EA has no relationship with you regarding your purchase, you have given them *nothing*. That's a simple fact, you can't argue with it because in no way is EA a party to the transaction when a used game is purchased.

So now you've bought that used game, you as a customer want to use EA's services? Why should they allow you to? You are *not* their customer. If you want to be their customer, then you need to pay them something for their service.

Games are not assets that you buy and then they depreciate. Only the disc and case are physical assets that you own. The software is licensed to you for you to use. It's software, not hardware.

Copyright law governs this, you're not buying an object, you're buying a license that grants you, *YOU* the customer that purchased the game new, certain rights of use. When that license is transferred to a third party during a used game transaction, not all the rights transfer. And before you object, don't bother, this is simply the law and the way it works. When you sell the game you are only selling the game on the disc, not the network service or online content. The online content is also copyrighted, and you as a used game buyer, have no right to use that material, until you obtain that right from the copyright holder. I don't care how stupid you think I am or how stupid you think copyright is (BTW copyright has existed for hundreds of years, and protects artists against exploitation. It's not simply an instrument of the RIAA designed to chase music pirates.). Copyright law is what it is, software is a copyrighted work that you purchase a license to use. The online pass is the fee you pay to purchase a license to use the online content. Like it or not it's fair.

Now, if you want to add in the whole aspect of the number of used games sales that happen, and how much revenue this redirects from developers/publishers just look at the comment above by someone who said that id used game revenue was taken away from retailers they would have a problem. In truth, GameStop makes far more from used game sales than it does from new games or consoles. Think about that when you are blasting a developer or publisher for wanting to be paid for every copy of their game that is sold.

1 up, 0 down

DeathOfChaos
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 6:10:31 PM

@WolfCrimson
Yeah, I guess I kind of went overboard saying he was stupid. It's just annoying that he doesn't actually take in what I say, lol.

@TheHighlander
If you buy a game, whether it's used or not, you should be able to play that game. It's like they want to treat people who aren't as money efficient negatively, which is how it seems to me because I almost never have money to buy a game brand new and I know a lot of people who are the same. Like one person said earlier (but not in exact words); if you buy a used Ford truck, does Ford get funds from that truck? If you buy a refurbished PC, does, say, Dell get money from that refurbished machine? No, but you get full rights to use the item as you please. Why treat buying a used video game as if it were pirated and sold? That's like having someone sell a DVD to a friend and then their friend have to pay $10 to access the special features. Does that seem fair? No, and it doesn't seem fair with a video game, either. They get their money from their full retail price, and then that sells what, like 400,000 copies? And out of all that, some copies are bought online, giving them almost or even all of the money they get from that game.

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 7:59:17 PM

Even with the online pass you can still play the game on the disc, there is no change there, you simply can't access the online aspects of the game.

0 up, 0 down

jaybiv
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 @ 1:02:44 AM

Wouldn't a second hand purchaser still be a customer of EA since the software is property of EA? So, by owning the disc which contains the software, EA has to honor the TOC for the game, right?

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 @ 1:50:35 AM

The second hand purchaser has an indirect relationship in that they are bound by the terms of the copyright on the copyrighted work 'sold' on by the initial owner of the game. However the contract that is operation as a result of the purchase is between the 2nd purchaser and the original purchaser.

This is why I said that Copyright is complicated.

The second hand purchaser can't impose any obligation on EA simply by purchasing a game second hand, that would be a really bad precedent to set for about a billion reasons.

0 up, 0 down

The X Factor 9
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 12:50:01 AM
Reply

I don't think there's anything wrong with this surprisingly...The developers don't get a dime off of used game sales. The people that actually create the game deserve to get paid one way or another. And for people who complain about the paying $60 for a game, just wait for a sale and buy it. You're bound to find these games on sale for about $40 within a month or two of their release.

3 up, 3 down

The X Factor 9
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 12:54:16 AM
Reply

And to those who try and use the "I save a few bucks by buying used..." argument. Why not wait for a sale? And like I said before...why not actually support the people who create the game rather than line the pockets of those who offer you pennies on the dollar on trades and then price gouge you on "used" games?

You guys sound like the type of people who tip 10% at a restaurant in the hopes of saving money. Show a little respect to those who deserve it. In this case, the developers.

3 up, 4 down

Gabriel013
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 1:20:09 AM

Must be nice to have so much disposable income there buddy.

So what you are saying is that we should support the original producers by only buying new, making purchases day 1 100% depreciating items? That makes no sense at all.
Games are just another entertainment market so lets be fair and extend your ideology to ALL acquisitions eh?

What about your car. Did you buy that brand new? Do you expect to sell it or trade it in towards something diferent when you tire of it?
Thought so. Forget the difference in the dollars, the principle is the same.

Last edited by Gabriel013 on 5/11/2010 1:20:44 AM

6 up, 2 down

Highlander
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 1:31:07 AM

Gabriel,

When you buy a licensed product, you are buying the right to use it, not owning the product itself. As it happens all things depreciate, and some faster than others. However because the used game market is completely disconnected from the game publishers, the rate of depreciation on every game sold and then traded is effectively 100% for the publisher.

It sounds to me like you want something for nothing. The thing is, you get what you pay for.

5 up, 6 down

Gabriel013
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 6:59:34 AM

I'll never say no to something for nothing, who would?:), but that's not what I am after.
The whole concept behind this is to cripple the preowned market. What they should be doing is offering an alternative allowing gamers to order from, and sell to, the publishers directly.

This would ensure they receive more revenue but also keep the preowned market alive AND cut out the need for the latest tactic in Ben's article.

As has already been mentioned by someone else, this will harm the new game market as much as the preowned one as more gamers will refuse to risk throwing away $60 on a risky purchase if they know they won't be able to make some of that back with a resale.

It will also mean that more gamers wait for the game to drop significantly in price which could take several months. This will impact the placing on the sales charts.

Think of all those who took a risk on a new IP as a day one purchase as they had the safetly net of trading in if they didn't like it.
Remove the preowned market and the sales numbers for week 1/month 1 plummet.

The big publishers should offer a valid alternative to the likes of Gamestop, not try to stop the preowned market completely.

7 up, 1 down

Jawknee
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 2:04:37 AM
Reply

I'm not sure how i feel about this. I understand their reason but at the same time its limiting our options. Right now its only EA(which i don't buy many of their games anyways) but this will spread.

Now if only EA would make more games worth $60 then this wouldn't be a problem. :)

5 up, 0 down

just2skillf00l
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 2:14:07 AM
Reply

Well I can understand and appreciate this action taken by EA. I buy most of my games new anyway, this hardly if not completely affects me in no way. Smart business move by EA despite my personal preferences in purchasing games.

2 up, 3 down

BikerSaint
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 2:32:50 AM
Reply

Like I said before, I don't do online anyway, so this new "EA Pass" deal shouldn't effect me at all.

But after reading all the comments here & mulling it over, maybe if EA would have only charged $5.00, I'd be a bit more agreeable towards their cause.

The brand new vs used games problem for me is that although I'd love to buy every game brand new, I'm a collector of games & consoles, and except for 3 times a year, I usually just have very limited funds, so I buy a couple $20 games here & a couple $20 there.

And all the games I'll never play like most RPG's, RTS, & sports, I still need to buy towards completing my collections, so I wait till they're bargain binned, usually for around $2 to $10.

For me, there just isn't any feasible way I could have bought all of those 1400+ games I have now in my collections by buying every one of them brand new, and I'd probably wouldn't have more than a pitiful sized collection of 80 games or so.

But when I do get my 3 big checks, I do try to buy some my most favorite games new, but only when they've dropped a bit in price.

And if I ever frigging do hit the lottery, then I'll buy every single game brand new.

3 up, 0 down

___________
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 2:37:45 AM
Reply

how the fu*k are companies getting away with this these days?
if i buy a product than thats it i should be able to use EVERYTHING! that product entails.
i dont buy a car, to then have to buy the engine, gearbox, transmission and such as extras!

whats next?
"oh, you want to turn your system on? that will be 10 dollars."
"oh, you want to save your game? that will be 7.95"
honestly, soon were going to be charged to get out of fuck*ng bed!!!!!!!!!!!!!

like having features removed THAT I PAID FOR! was not bad enough, now if you want everything out of the game you paid for you need to pay more.

honestly the way this industry is going i can see this gen will be the last gen i buy new games every company has just gone money grubbing greedy SOBs!!!!!!!!
i can see my firing up my older dusty PC and breaking out the emulators from now on!

5 up, 5 down

WolfCrimson
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 3:18:13 AM

That's $10 for the rant.

5 up, 1 down

___________
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 7:59:01 AM

ok, its in the mail.

1 up, 1 down

sawao_yamanaka
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 10:30:47 AM

Be quiet about sony and your "precious" linux!

0 up, 3 down

thepill
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 2:39:47 AM
Reply

So, at first I'm looking at this and I was like, "you know I've got no problem with this", and then it hit me, What happens if my hdd crashes?". Now if EA is going to maintain all of my downloadable content on their servers, then I'm ok with this, but I've been screwed by the whole "code included with the new version of the game" crap before.

Remember when BF:BC2 came out and it was the collectors edition as long as supplies lasted? Well I purchased the game from Gamestop and it was the last new copy of the game that they had (so you know it was opened so that they could display the box), normally I don't care about this. Evidently someone copied the code out of the case and used it for a used game that they purchased.

I didn't play the game for a month after I purchased it and when I went to enter the code, it came up as used or expired. I called EA and they told me that there was nothing they could do, so I returned the game to Gamestop, where i had to jump through hoops and short of threatening physical violence on the manager for their BS practice of opening new games, they finally agreed to return the game, and called another Gamestop in the area and found a sealed copy. They put my return on a gift card and I had to drive across town to pick up the "NEW" copy.

I have since stopped buying games at Gamestop unless It's the last and only place to get what I'm looking for.

8 up, 0 down

FullmetalX10
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 2:49:27 AM
Reply

As long as the game works on my multiple accounts on my one Playstation.
I don't mind the 10 bucks cost if it's only for pre-used games, since I buy all my games new(all the games I see in my game cabinet are new, might have bought one or two games used in my life), and it's not like I'm planning to buy an EA game any time soon.

1 up, 1 down

DeathOfChaos
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 9:01:50 AM

It would only work on one account, it's a one time code and it expires after use. So if something happened to your PSN account and you needed to create another one, you'd have to pay $10 to be able use the game online. Sound fair? Not to me...

2 up, 1 down

kraygen
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 2:53:26 AM
Reply

I see a lot of people split on this and I can understand why. It's a really difficult thing to grasp in its entirety. When a company sells a video game brand new for $60 that cost has to cover a lot of different things.

Technically we're paying for the box and what's inside, the disc and booklet. That now belongs to us, however ea technically still owns the digital media stored on the disc and the online space that the disc allows you to access.

So in reality a few people buying that content used doesn't mean that ea is losing out on $60 per used purchaser because they have been payed for the box and it's contents, but they have not been paid for the digital media and online space that could be used by the new owners.

Some are saying but if joe uses it for 2 years or sells it after a week and someone else uses it for 2 years whats the difference. Well Ea would still have to use online space to store the online content for both accounts even tho joe isn't using it any more. Ea wouldn't know he sold it and so they are still holding his information online for him, because he is still their customer.

It's a mixed up and crazy problem and I personally don't think you could find a solution to suit everyone because that $60 is muddled up into so many aspects of that particular game.

In reality though if gaming companies want to put a stop to gamestop, maybe they should stop offering them exclusive pre-order deals. How many people have pre-ordered something from gamestop because they were the only ones receiving a particular pre-order deal. Maybe the companies should stop dealing with gamestop completely if they don't like their business model. If they did that we probably wouldn't have to discuss this "pass" fee one way or the other.

2 up, 0 down

WolfCrimson
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 3:27:30 AM

So $60 for a plastic box, a booklet and what is technically an empty Blu-ray disc. I still don't see the logic behind "All your digital media are belong to us". That is what we're paying for, isn't it? So why doesn't propriety change hands?

6 up, 1 down

WolfCrimson
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 4:48:51 AM

*edit- oops, I used the wrong word. Please exchange 'propriety' with 'ownership'.

3 up, 1 down

kraygen
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 12:52:23 PM

well technically the digital media on a game disc is like the music on a cd. You own the cd, but you don't own the music. That's why if you burn copies of a cd and give them out to everyone they call it pirating.

This is technically the same thing as far as the media on the disc goes.

1 up, 0 down

WolfCrimson
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 1:31:00 PM

kraygen, I am aware of what you mean, but pirating has nothing to do with ownership. Let's use the music cd as an example: The people who produced and worked on the CD sold it to you. You now have the CD. You paid for the CD, and the music in it. That's it. Piracy is illegal because selling the CD is how the musician (producer) is getting profit out of his/her product (his/her music), and because bypassing that would mean that it really cripples the musician's sales, it is illegal.

Last edited by WolfCrimson on 5/11/2010 1:34:45 PM

1 up, 0 down

kraygen
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:41:39 PM

Very true and likewise by continuously reselling a video game you are hurting the developer. Personally I don't think this move by Ea is the right one, but it's a complicated system with lots of problems and not very many good solutions.

If it were up to me I'd just have the game devs stop supporting gamestop entirely. Gamestop abuses the system. They abuse the devs, they abuse the consumers, and in the end gamestop is the only one winning.

Instead of charging the consumers I think Ea should charge gamestop the fee every time they sell the game used. Gamestop might raise their prices, but then consumers would be more likely to just wait until a new copy is cheaper. However it's not up to me and gamestop will keep abusing everybody until the devs stop letting them.

1 up, 0 down

Ergi
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 4:36:23 AM
Reply

Maybe they should make it so that the retailers actually have to give a part of the "used" pie to the developers. I get they want money for their services each time, but why stick it to Gamestop through the consumers?
If I buy a used game for 30 dollars then it would be fair if 10 dollars went to the developer. Not that I would have to pay those ten dollars extra. Knowing gamestop they would just charge more in that case though.
Or is it not possible for developers to do this by some law or something that i'm not aware of (quite possible).

6 up, 0 down

RadioHeader
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 6:22:56 AM

I was thinking the same thing, Ergi. Gamestop would indeed just up the price in that scenario, but that scenario won't arise because Gamestop have the lawyers to prove the idea is illegal. We gamers aren't united and don't have lawyers so we are there to be $hafted.

6 up, 0 down

Ultimadream
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:32:44 AM
Reply

Well luckily for me i dont have many EA games, Dead Space is the only PS3 one i think. And i never bought any DLC for that. I am stuborn and i still say i wont pay to play online, Games cost enough as it is, so i dont i should have to pay for for services which are already on the disc.

3 up, 0 down

Deleted User
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:37:39 AM
Reply

All i have to say is good for EA i hope other companys follow.

one way to combat to used game is to keep all your games once you buy them new even the ones u complet that what i do.if you can't aford new games when they come out well get a f'en job. the game u want well be there when u get the money.

currenly playing
ps3 - GTA EFLC (TBoGT)
360 - Splintercell conviction

4 up, 5 down

johnld
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:44:46 AM
Reply

In my opinion, game features shouldnt be the thing thats taken hostage unless you buy it new. Thats because playing online is somewhat the standard now. hell, even single player games started adding online multiplayer. If they decide to hold online multiplayer, they should at least include offline multiplayer as a standard on all those games. make a 4 player split screen local multiplayer a standard feature on all multiplayer games. as long as online access remains free, we wont really see much of a difference. Those who pay for a subscription and that online pass will be pissed because their subscription already allows them to play online. I'm all for combating retailers profiting off used game sales but to take away such a major feature is just crap. although i would've expected this from activision. anyway, they should just stick with dlc and not game features. i know gimping the game is a much more effective solution to discourage used game purchases but you cant take out a feature that is somewhat standard today.

also, as i was telling jawknee earlier, if this system becomes widespread for each developer and publisher, it will put a dent in gamestops profits. It will also kill rentals because it would cost too much to completely try a game before deciding on a purchase. gamefly subscription would be useless then or probably raise prices. you also cant let friends borrow your games because they'll need to pay for online access too without owning the game. if they can lock out one videogame feature, whats stopping them from locking out other features. pretty soon you'll need to pay 10 dollars on single player games in order to beat it. hahaha, beating the hell out of a final boss only to find out that its immortal until you punch in a registration number.

recap, if this happens to all games, local 4 player split screen/offline multiplayer must become standard again or at least come back. renting will become extinct. then we would have to be very careful about which games we purchase. we better not have games that is short as hell.

can anyone remind me about who said game demos are a luxury and are talking about paid demos....hmm someones trying to get their hands on everything.

Last edited by johnld on 5/11/2010 5:47:53 AM

3 up, 1 down

DickyDick1969
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:56:09 AM
Reply

There is some truth to this..

A. If 3 people buy all new games they will likely buy the game as soon as it is out. Why wait if you can afford it?
B. But if 3 people buy the game used they will do that over a longer period of time, the game has to become "used" first...

All the 3 guys want the same online experience, so for scenario B EA has to keep the servers running longer.

On the other hand, for scenario A they need more server power and bandwidth, but for a shorter time.

Longer service time is more expensive than server power I guess, so this 10 $ thing is a understandable move of EA.

Last edited by DickyDick1969 on 5/11/2010 6:01:25 AM

2 up, 4 down

DickyDick1969
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:56:48 AM
Reply

--- Except, you don't own the game, only the disc. The game is a licensed software product. The transferability of that license is limited and does not cover the online content. ---

Says who? That's the evil of "software licenses", and the whole industry behind it.

If you buy a painting or a book you're not going to pay a license-fee to the artist/writer to be able to see or read it, are you? So why for software? What's so different about that?

4 up, 2 down

RadioHeader
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 6:35:57 AM
Reply

EA's servers aren't affected by used sales in any way. If they sell 2 million copies, there's a maximum of 2 million people online at any given time, regardless of trading. They simply don't like the 'used market', but screw them, everything can be resold.

5 up, 1 down

JackC8
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 7:12:03 AM
Reply

I couldn't care less about their sports titles anyway. Tiger Woods golf has twice as many courses on the Wii than it does on the PS3 and xbox, then they charged $8 - $10 EACH to download all the missing ones. Part of their total commitment to providing maximum value to their customers you know.

I have to chuckle at the Gamestop employees and all the angry customers they'll have to deal with because you know perfectly well they won't tell anybody that the used version won't have online unless you pay extra for it.

I guess it's not a big deal to me. I buy all my games from Amazon and the sellers on Amazon. Usually I can find a new copy for only a few dollars more than a used copy. If it's a really good game, I don't mind paying a few extra bucks. If it's not, I just wait for the price to go down even more. I don't play online anyway. As long as the game update - to fix all the bugs - is still free, I'm fine.

4 up, 0 down

NoSmokingBandit
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 7:17:49 AM
Reply

I think its BS.

If they sell 1 mil copies of a certain game then they have to have server capacity for those 1 mil people. If i left my friend borrow my disc they dont need 1,000,001 capacity, still 1 million. They arent losing anything if a game changes hands used.

"BUT STEVE!" You say. "They should make profit when used games sell too!!!!" NO. Does Random House make money when i buy a used book? Does ford make money when i buy a used car? Does the lumber mill make any profit when i buy a used house?

If EA doesnt want their games to switch owners as often then they need to make them worth owning for more than 8 hours.

Last edited by NoSmokingBandit on 5/11/2010 7:18:48 AM

4 up, 1 down

WolfCrimson
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 7:28:43 AM

I think this is just for EA Sports titles, which really have alot of replayability.

And I agree with your point.

P.S. Your name is Steve?

2 up, 1 down

phade2blaq
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 7:44:14 AM
Reply

One 5 letter word comes to mind ..... GREED ! Pure and simple EA greed ! I wouldn't mind paying if they would innovate their games but anyone who has played Madden for the past 20 years or so knows EA has done nothing to innovate the game !

It's basically the same game that came out on the 16-bit consoles !

To boot, I sure hope they clean up the "Madden Glitches" because I can't recall how many games online I've won and lost because someone used a disconnect glitch or some other glitch to get a win when they were losing !

I won't pay money to get cheated on !

7 up, 3 down

nolan
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 8:01:23 AM
Reply

This really isn't anything new. EA has been doing this with NBA Live since they introduced Dynamic DNA. Buy it new, you get the code to get updates for free. Buy it used and you have to pay $10 to access the feature. I figured it would be just a matter of time before it was implemented on all EA Sports titles.

For the record, I have no problem with it. It's a business and all publishers have been getting shafted on used game sales for quite a while now.

1 up, 3 down

JackC8
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 11:51:18 AM

They kind of did the same thing with the Saboteur - if you bought the game new, you got a code for the free nudie DLC. If you bought it used, and the code had already been used, it cost $5.

1 up, 0 down

Dustinwp
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 8:58:55 AM
Reply

Of course Peter Moore thinks this is a great idea! Leave it to the former Microsoft Vice President to be the cheer leader for nickel-and-diming consumers too death.

Last edited by Dustinwp on 5/11/2010 9:05:12 AM

3 up, 1 down

Dustinwp
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 1:49:43 PM

Also, I do buy all my games new so this really does not bother me. Getting free content for Dante's Inferno and BFBC2 for buying the games new is pretty sweet.
Plus anything that affects Gamestops borderline criminal overpriced used games market is fine by me. I just can't stand Peter Moore and wish EA would not let him speak about pricing for anything!

0 up, 0 down

brown_E_bear
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 9:09:43 AM
Reply

Highlander's argument makes complete sense & I agree fully with it. For all the 2nd-hand buyers getting all riled up at EA your anger is being vented towards the wrong party. It's the retailers that should be getting the stick. As Highlander already pointed out '...the practice of retailers taking old games in trade for less than 50% of the original retail price, and reselling them at 90% of the full retail price is a complete rip off.' Retailers get to cream you lot off of such purchases and the publishers & developers don't see a cent from that. Yes it happens in other industries but as Highlander pointed out again games are licensed products and not the same as other commodities & assets. Whether retailers are prepared to take that $10 out of their extortionate 2nd-hand prices or not is up to the market to decide. If you were in the hot seat of a developer you'd want a piece of the action too. Seeing a retailer walk off with profit margins that make your eyes pop out of your head would make you do the same thing EA is trying to do if not worse. You're lucky that all EA's asking for is about a sixth of the initail selling price. I would've opted for a minimum of half of the initial price and I wouldn't say it was for online access...I'd tell you straight that it's for the piece of the action that retailers are screwing us over! For those of you that say 'well EA can go stuff themselves they won't get a cent from me' go ahead because there are going to be just as many people who will support them on this than against and there will be games from them that you'll want to play, don't even kid yourself on that. At the end of the day it's business and this industry has room for such a manoeuver and as Nolan also pointed out they've been doing this with NBA Live through Dynamic DNA. They're not going in blindly without some form of research too so I'm sure they're also aware of the risks involved. Bottom line publishers and devs deserve some love from 2nd-hand purchases. EA are just trying to get some in this form!

2 up, 3 down

Gabriel013
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 @ 1:10:48 AM

Thanks, I should have pointed out earlier that I agree with Highliander (and others) that the purchase and resale price scheme applied by Gamestop is a complete swizz. I may buy second hand but only on a significant saving. No wasy I'd pay $50 for a month old preowned title.

So does this mean that if the Gamestop pricing model was fairer, some of the commenters here wouldn't be supporting the EA tactic as much. Ie, this is more about hating on Gamestop than favouring EA?

I'd love to buy brand new all the time but I have a house to run so it isn't going to happen.

0 up, 0 down

Imagi
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 10:05:59 AM
Reply

This is inevitable, games today have such high production values it is straight away an uphill struggle for a profit to be turned. EA could pump 50 million into a game, sell 1 million copies and yet they can probably see a total of 4 or more million users playing that game over the course of the first year.

Used games sales have had a huge effect on their revenue, I am not against this move in principle as it help combat piracy and the initial investment/gamble made on the production of a game, but it does worry me that this could easily be a system which can be abused by publishers.

If you buy the game new then you are not effected, if you buy the game used then just factor in the extra $10 into the price and then sleep a little easier in the knowledge that you are helping secure the creation of the games that give you such enjoyment in the future, not destroying them.

1 up, 3 down

Zorigo
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 10:19:51 AM
Reply

Pay for online, on top of my games...

now someone please remind me of why i din't get an xbox.

2 up, 2 down

WolfCrimson
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 10:48:53 AM

-It shoots red laser beams. (RROD)
-It can be used as an aircraft noise cancellation device.(too loud)
-You pay for the online.
-Relatively poor line-up of exclusives.
-Not many proper released exclusives.
-Obnoxious online community (or so I've heard)
-It does your cat's job. (scratches your disks)
-Have to buy official add-ons/harddrives which are expensive.

p.s. Oh, and most importantly: I'll never speak to you ever again if you do buy it :P

Last edited by WolfCrimson on 5/11/2010 10:51:21 AM

4 up, 0 down

JackC8
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 11:53:47 AM

It's EA, not Sony. They're doing this on Xbox as well as PS3 games.

2 up, 0 down

vgWacky
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 11:18:38 AM
Reply

I think the dispute here is between what is "fair" to the consumer and what is within the legitimate rights of the publisher (EA). EA, like any other company, has the right to make a profit through any legal means. While the consumer has the right to get what they paid for as advertised.

Let me use an example to illustrate my point.
MADDEN NFL 10 is an EA game that comes with both online and offline functionality. This is advertised on the box (and other promotional content) and any consumer who purchases the game (i.e. a license to play the game) has the right to get what they paid for - i.e, use both the online and offline features. This is true whether the game is purchased new or used. Just because the license is transferred from one person to another doesn't negate the terms of the license.

Further, even though you're buying a license for the game doesn't mean you don't have the right to sell that license - it is legal to sell used games. That's why millions of consumers either sell their used games to other gamers or to retailers like Gamestop who re-sell the game for a profit.

Of course the problem for the EA is that it doesn't see any more revenue for games that are re-sold. So what should it do?

Lobby to make it illegal to sell used games? No since it would be very costly and would cause an uproar with both consumers (who may boycott the company) and retailers (who carry a great deal of sway since they are (for now at least) the primary distributors for publishers.

Another option would be to try and get a cut each time a game is sold. The problem with this is that it would be almost unenforceable on private sellers. It is possible that retailers may agree to this but the retailer would probably demand concessions such as lowering the price they pay the publishers for new games.

So it seems that EA has chosen to effectively change the the way they sell games by offering different licenses for the offline and online content of their games. The offline comes with the original redistributable license so can be re-sold while the online content has its own license which will either; comes free when a game game is bought new, or, can be bought separately by those purchasing used copies of the game.

What EA have is doing is perfectly legal and within their rights since they are effectively providing two products with their won separate licenses. And they have the added bonus of not pissing of their distributors.

But is it fair on the average gamer? It is hard to say but I am leaning towards not because it is a very big change in the way we purchase and play our games. Online functionality has been a part of games for a long time and gamers have been accustomed to getting a online component as part of the package they pay for.

You could argue that developers provide DLC and updates for their content so they should charge for every person that uses it. That would be a very good argument if the DLC was free. But the fact is taht 99% of DLC is charged content and free updates are unheard of these days in sporting SIMS. Which, incidentally, is a big reason why games like Madden and Fifa keep selling every year.

Some developers do provide free content updates for their games but that is almost exclusively in the realm of online only games and they go by a subscription model. Effectively pay as you play.

And what of the future? I'm not sure if this will catch on. Personally I buy almost all my games new so it won't overly effect me anyway but I wouldn't be surprised if it became the industry standard if sales of the next set of EA sports titles (the 11's) are strong or at least not overly affected.

Personally I think the best option would be to move to download purchases. Of course the retailers would fight this and I doubt the game prices would be much lower. But from the perspective of publishers it will force consumers to buy games directly from them and they will save money on distribution, packaging etc.

1 up, 2 down

Imagi
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 11:28:34 AM
Reply

I still want game prices to drop in general but there really are some cheap ass people in here that have to get to grips with the fact that this is business and sometimes you have to do or die!

Fact is that the used games market is hurting the longevity of some games publishers, and if they go, so do the games! This is about the fairest way to move forward, this could so easily have been much worse by having a system where the game is literally locked to your game account, thus totally denying anybody the chance of buying or selling the used games.

0 up, 4 down

Nynja
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 12:15:26 PM
Reply

Big sale on all EA games at GameStop inbound!

This doesn't bother me much since I typically buy my games new.

Personally I can see the point from both sides on this one. Coming from a software developing company, if our software were to get pirated I'd be out of a job. Then of course there's the used car comparison.

Touchy subject.

0 up, 0 down

Nynja
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:13:17 PM

Wait a minute...

Does this mean if I take the game I bought over to a friends house, it will not work (online) unless I sign on using -my- PSN name? So I can't even let a friend borrow it?

This I need answered before I lash out at EA.

Last edited by Nynja on 5/11/2010 5:17:28 PM

0 up, 0 down

Gabriel013
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 @ 1:17:05 AM

If what I read further up holds true then the code is locked to a single user account on your machine so NO, you can't access the 'coded' functionality on another machine.

This would also mean that if two people share a console and have independant ID's, they would both need to purchase the access code.

0 up, 0 down

Alienange
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 12:41:29 PM
Reply

You gotta be pretty dense to think that EA is ripping you off by chargin $10 for unlimited access to their gaming servers for a game you bought second hand.

Don't come crying about how only rich people buy games new. That's just stupid talk. Go to your local GameStop and tell us all how much it costs for a second hand copy of MW2 or AC2 or any other game released in 2009 that isn't already at a reduced price at retail. These cry babies are saving maximum $10 by buying used!

Now look at Live. Charging $5 a month for online service with NO game. At least with EA you're getting a game.

Now if EA's intentions are really to counteract used game sales, all they have to do is stop sending their new products to stores that sell second hand games. Simple. You either sell new or you are a second hand store. Take your pick. Why should a publisher supply a store that is, in the end, ripping them off?

Last edited by Alienange on 5/11/2010 12:42:30 PM

2 up, 3 down

Darwin1967
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 12:59:58 PM
Reply

Well I sincerely hope this forces Gamestop to re-evaluate its business practice. I went in to find a used copy of MW2 to replace a damaged one...they wanted 55.00 for a disc (no case, no manual). I was like, screw that, and bought a new copy from a different retailer. No way they can still charge near retail and still expect consuemers to pay the 10.00 pass fee...but dollars to doughnuts the scheisters don't tell consumers upfront what to expect when they pop that game in....get ready for some seriously pissed off consumers who will force Gamestop to adjust some fees.

0 up, 0 down

DjEezzy
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 1:58:27 PM
Reply

EA makes alot of profit off of each game they sell. When you have games like Madden selling millions of copies. They've made their money. I dont see their reasoning from a consumer standpoint. Sure from a business standpoint it means more mulah!!! Yay for EA. I wish i worked for them!!! Then i could cash in on the extra money they're making. If you want to charge me to play online then take the online away. You offered it to us... We didnt beg you for it. They are the ones that gave us the expectation that when we pay $60-$65 a game. That service is included. Now they want to switch it on us.
Honestly gamestop isnt the bad guy and its not my problem that EA doesn't make money off of Used sales. Gamestop is just trying to do what EA has been doing from the get go. Make more money. Sure their prices are ridiculous. But they are no worse then EA or Activision. This crap about him trying to convince people that we should pay more money for a service that they've already provided for free is stupid. As i've said before these people (EA) have already made their hundreds of millions in profits. Don't get Greedy!!!

3 up, 0 down

Miggy
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 2:00:51 PM
Reply

meh. I don't play any EA sports games. It's the exact same game every year just with a different star on the cover and one minute addition added to it.

1 up, 0 down

G8GTdriver
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 2:30:31 PM
Reply

Whatever. The only time I play sports games is when a friend or sibling brings the game over. I guess that will I have to go to their house now instead.
This does strike a nerve with me though as I do borrow/lend games to others. I usually end up buying said borrowed game new so we can play online together if its good. If EA doesn't see a huge backlash from this I see ALL game publishers doing this which could very well significantly reduce my gaming.
Can't wait until the console makers follow suit. Maybe Ford will charge me when I buy a used 2012 5.0 Mustang in 2014 since they didn't make any money from me buying it used. Maybe home builders should charge the new owners everytime it changes hands, builders worked hard and a new owner is enjoying thier house, the builders should be compensated.
If EA's problem is with Gamestop maybe they shouldn't allow GS to sell their games new. All this does is hurt or tick off the consumer.

Last edited by G8GTdriver on 5/11/2010 2:32:37 PM

2 up, 1 down

daus26
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 4:52:33 PM
Reply

Before I type anything, I want to let you guys know that I've read probably 90% of what people have posted so far. These type of arguments really intrigue me because there are strong arguments to both sides, but one can only make more sense.

I can go super in-depth with this so I'll make it as short/simple as possible.

Technically, EA is getting extra money here. Think of it this way:

Scenario one: Everyone buys the game new and not pay for the online content.

Scenario two: People both buy the game new and used.

Obviously scenario one is impossible. There will always be people buying used game, and EA knows this. So what do they do? Their logic is that they expect that some people WILL eventually buy their games used, otherwise, this plan is a fail. If everyone bought their games new, there would be no one to pay the $10 fee they're talking about now.

Now backing up Saint's post, the people who bought it new basically covers for the people who bought it used. It's not like the people who bought it new and sells it is going to use the online service again. It's like an imaginary user. EA can just imagine that the person who bought it used is the person who bought it new. Like imagining scenario one, there is no real lost.

All what I've said and thought about is based on EA's reasonings and the situation now. They're reasoning wasn't really about losing money, but the fact that they think only people who bought it new, should experience the online. Those who bought it used must pay.

It's as simple as that. Some of you guys keep on talking about losing money and all that. I personally think it's all an attempt to make a bit of extra cash from the so far successful business that gamestop and other similar stores have.

If the situation is the fact that they're investing and trying to rebound their lost from providing dedicated servers by using this tactic, then this logic makes sense. Just read what their reason again for all this guys. Does it makes sense to you, honestly? Hope I made sense at least.

Bty, I don't really care if they do this for real. In my eyes, it makes sense, but again, the reasons don't.

Last edited by daus26 on 5/11/2010 5:01:24 PM

1 up, 0 down

Highlander
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:04:07 PM

EA get's nothing extra here. When user #1 buys a game new, they are licensed to use the game on the disc as well as they online content. When they trade that game in, the license to use the game on the disc is transferred to the party the game is traded to, but user #1 is still the license holder for the online content. User #2 comes along and pays the retailer for the used game, and the license for the content on the disc is transferred to user #2 - by virtue of the purchase. But user #2 is still not licensed to use any of the online content. Only when user #2 contacts EA and acquires a license to use the online content are they a licensed user. The online pass allows EA and user #2 to establish this customer relationship to allow user #2 to obtain the rights to the online content. Once again though, if user #2 trades in the game, it's only the game disc that is involved in the transaction and therefore only that license is transferred. USer #3 will have to likewise establish a customer relationship with EA to use the online content.

EA get's nothing extra. The problem is that you are not recognizing that a game consists of two components each of which are treated separately as licensed products. The game manual has a license in it that is the license for the game on the disc. When you sign in online, you are asked to agree to the license terms before proceeding. The online license is limited to you and only you and non-transferable.

That's just the way it works. EA is getting nothing extra here, they are simply getting their fair due.

I have to wonder why people seem to be so damn cheap, that they can't see that paying a company for it's services and products is right and fair.

3 up, 1 down

daus26
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:09:22 PM

Yeah, the problem right now is I'm not getting their reasonings for this.

Also, by extra, I mean extra to how things work now. I have no idea how their revenues and whatnot is now, nor how they've been investing and gaining profit for all these years.

But yes Highlander, your reasons do make sense, but that's not what I've read in the article. Perhaps, most wouldn't understand it anyway if they'd say what you posted.

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:18:14 PM

That's the big problem with copyright works. It's a hard area of law, and even harder when it involves online software that appears on the surface to be nothing more than a service, but is in reality licensed software. Copyright is a law that governs intangible things and our use of them. It's not like buying and selling things which we can own. We never own a copyright work unless we originate it or purchase the complete rights from the owner. All we do is buy a license to use the work. When some of the works we purchase have more limited license terms or some of the works are less visible than others, it's easy to mis-understand or simply not recognize that a license is required. Copyright law and licensing is very, very difficult for everyone.

Last edited by Highlander on 5/11/2010 5:24:16 PM

1 up, 1 down

Gabriel013
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 @ 1:24:50 AM

We don't mind paying for the products and services. I guess you could narrow it down to us not being happy that the two component licences aren't both transferrable.

Ultimately, if Gamestop have to drop their resale price to allow for the extra fee incurred by the consumer, they'll pay significantly less to the original seller.
This won't hurt the retailer, just the original new game purchaser.

0 up, 0 down

Toxin
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:03:24 PM
Reply

I do not see this as new. A lot of software is like this; Windows, Adobe and many others companies only allow you to install the purchased software on one computer. If you want it on more than you must pay.

Resellers could enter into agreement with the publisher to have certified pre-owned games. That way if you buy a used game you get a code with it.

1 up, 0 down

Highlander
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:07:43 PM

That would work really well because then the publisher/developer gets a slice of the used game. Of course retailers would have to take a hit on their profit on used games. then again, when you can buy a game for $60, trade it (in mint condition)the next day for less than 50% of that purchase price, and then within hours see it selling for a mere $5 less than the brand new purchase price. When that happens, I think it's clear that the retailer can afford to take a little less profit...

2 up, 0 down

Gabriel013
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 @ 1:27:41 AM

I'd support this approach if it could be structured fairly.

This would mean that the 2nd hand purchaser had the same out of the box content and service access that the original purchaser had.

0 up, 0 down

Imagi
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:14:38 PM
Reply

OK, lets try a food analogy to help some folks.

You walk into a All you can eat buffet, pay the $10 fee and sit down and eat your heart out, now that you have had your fill, you sell your seat to another person for $7, that person then sits down and eats their heart out, now that they have had their fill they sell their seat to another person for $6, that person then sits down and eats their heart out, now that they have had their fill they sell their seat to another person for $6, that person then sits down and eats their heart out, now that they have had their fill they sell their seat .........All you can eat buffet company goes bust, end of story.

0 up, 2 down

Highlander
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:20:32 PM

software isn't like food. You buy and consume food - is is used one time and then gone. With software you are only licensed to use the software, the software is not consumed by your use.

2 up, 0 down

daus26
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:20:43 PM

I personally think that's a bad analogy. Food isn't really something that can be used over and over without putting more effort. In EA's case, they can at least imagine that the original user is still playing the game, although he/she already passed it on to a different user. Not the case for a buffet.

Bty, I'm all for this move. I don't mind it at all. First one I encountered something like this was BFBC2. I never had a problem with it.

2 up, 0 down

Imagi
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:27:43 PM

It's an analogy, give it some poetic licence, just trying to help illustrate the basic premiss of it all.

0 up, 2 down

Imagi
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:33:48 PM

If you buy a game and play it online for 6 months then sell it and buy another game and play that online, now you and the person are both playing games online doubling the server load, yet only one has contributed to the cost's involved.

0 up, 1 down

BikerSaint
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 6:19:08 PM

Highlander,
I don't do online so I don't know how all this works so I'm going to guess a bit here....

What about in this hypothetical scenario????

Say I buy one of their sports games brand new, but since I only play SP mode, I never go on-line.

Now by buying that said game brand new, I just bought the right's(and am entitled) to 1 spot on their server, whether I ever use it or not, am I right so far???

So, if I'm correct so far, and I never use the their on-line, but I sell the game 1 week later, that same 1 spot on the sever has no way of knowing I sold the game, so it is still open for me.

Now, the guy who just bought my game IS a on-line player & he DOEs go on-line & replaces me on my same 1 open spot on that server(that I hadn't ever used).

So, if my thinking is fairly correct so far, then how exactly is EA losing any money when they're not having to open up an additional 1 spot on their server for that guy who bought my used game??? And why should any of that even matter if nothing's changed to the server's amount of opened spots, especially if the server can't distinguish between him or me???

And something else I just thought of too, is that there's a lot of people just like myself, who don't do online gaming, so EA would be in effect doing nothing more than "DOUBLE-DIPPING" that same fee twice for all those open spots that they had saved for those non-on-line players too, right?

Last edited by BikerSaint on 5/11/2010 6:23:56 PM

2 up, 0 down

G8GTdriver
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 7:26:41 PM

If I buy the newest Madden, play it for 6 months and trade it in. You buy it and are now playing it, the net result of server load is the same, one user. Or we trade, NHL for Madden, only one of us is on NHL and the other is on Madden. At no point in time does the server load double UNLESS a game is copied. Every single used copy at one point in time was a new sale to EA.
I just wish EA would say the reason they are doing this and that is to make money. The online experience won't change at all. Soon enough though this will be commonplace in the market, someone will push the fee to $15 then $20.

0 up, 0 down

jaybiv
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 @ 1:34:24 AM

@biker. Your scenario becomes a moot point because you probably wouldn't use the code to go online. So the buyer of your used game would be a lucky muh.

0 up, 0 down

junglemunquay
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:34:28 PM
Reply

All I see is that if they can make more money from online play, bye bye single player!!

1 up, 0 down

LightShow
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:54:58 PM
Reply

they already do this for BFBC2

and i dont know anyone who will buy a madden game used. by the time madden games are getting sold to gamestop the next ones already out. i dont know if this extends to other games, however.

and by my eye, its only going forward on EA sports games. until activision puts this out on COD, i doubt EA shooters will be touched by this policy. FPSs are just too competitive to give any edge to your opponent.

1 up, 0 down

G8GTdriver
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 7:29:09 PM

It won't be long until this fee is across the board unless there is huge backlash against EA. Similar to how bag fees are on just about all airlines now.

0 up, 0 down

BikerSaint
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 5:56:55 PM
Reply

STOP NICKEL & DIMING GAMERS!!!!!

EA's won't be hurting GS or any other "used" game re-seller as much as they'll be hurting the "used" game customers that only have severely limited funds to begin with.

Should those less unfortunate with money be penalized for not having any? What about disabled people, what about people in cash-oppressed countries, or what about people who's medical bills can't justify the price of new games????

And seriously now, exactly how much of each $10 Pass EA's making a grab for(if any fraction of $$ at all), do you really think that EA is going to set aside for the developers???

I say exactly "ZERO"!!!!

Anyways, something that "Gabriel013" said in one of his post's above, his idea really got me thinking about it and I believe that this would the best amount of sense for "everyone" involved.

Instead of trying to nickel & dime all the consumers with all their new fees, the publisher's just need to set up their own used game trading post. And they could do this all much more fairly than Gamestop ever could too.

A prime example could be that if you want to trade in your EA game for another EA game, then EA will give you a "FAIR" trade-in price towards another title(either brand new or used.
Then EA can re-sell that used game they just took in, at a much "FAIRER" price too, back to the next customer.
And they could even use a sliding price scale for if that same game were to continuiously return back to them. So, each time that same game's sold, & it happens to return again for another title, the price on that old game drops once again for the next customer.

Plus they can proportion a small amount(maybe5 to 10% of that money?) to go right back into the developer's pockets on each used game's re-sale too.

But, if this scenario would be too much of a hassle for each individual publisher to do themselves, then they could ALL work together to create this new "used" games co-op type business & that way, even one publisher's game could also be traded for another publisher's game.

Something along those lines could really work to satisfy all, both the Publisher, the Developer, and most of all, the consumers.

Now, I'm sure Gamestop would take a great big hit in the beginning and I hate to see any company go out of business(except for MS), but I believe that GS/EB could still survive.

But not unless they completely & drastically re-vamp their business model/policy with a lot of changes, and completely overhaul & revise their horrible trade-in pricing structure to a much needed fairer trade value too, which would be another beneficial side-effect bonus for all gaming consumers.

2 up, 1 down

Toxin
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 6:33:48 PM

I do not see much of a discount on buying new vs used. Why not wait for a drop in price before buying games you can get lucky and get free download content with it. If a person has low or no money how can they justify buying a game? How is the $5 to $10 discount on an used game going to help them? This adds up yes but if there budget does not allow it than they need to rethink it.

0 up, 0 down

Naga
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 7:13:12 PM
Reply

Hey EA... you did what? *bitch slap* how dare you serves you right for releasing the same game every year.

0 up, 0 down

BikerSaint
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 7:58:48 PM
Reply

Toxin,
I usually buy used so I'll answer your question.

I'm not sure what you mean by "only a $5 to $10 discount", but my discounts are almost always at least $30 or more, plus another 10% discount totaled off all my used games too.

As for myself, I don't do online or MP modes, and I'm usually on a very tight limited income, so I can actually "afford" to wait out every game(yes, even if it's over a year or more later).

I'm a console & games collector with over 1400 games now, so I usually have to buy used just to be able to afford all the games I still NEED for my collections.

And I try to stay at around a $20 dollar price-point for most games, but I also buy new when GS has a price drop to around $35 when they're also offering up one of their "Buy2-Get1 free" deals.

So at least for me, there's really no need to me to rethink or justify anything, because I clearly have done all my own homework on this one.

1 up, 0 down

OriginalSin
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 @ 5:50:25 AM
Reply

I also agree with Highlander. I fully get what EA is doing and it makes sense.

I hardly buy a game second hand but when I do it has a good reason for it and also in my country 2nd hand games don't sell for much cheaper than the original ones in the shops so we don't really score by buying 2nd hand games. Maybe a little but definitely not a lot.

So in my opinion what EA is doing here is right. And as Highlander said why would they want to give you the whole online thing for free if you bought the game 2nd hand from a 3rd party which means they make no money.

Think about this for a second... What if every single game sold was a brand new purchase? Don't you think the sales of lets say Uncharted , GOW, heavy Rain and all those would have been a lot more???? How many time have those game been sold and resold at the cost of the developer?

Take Heavenly Sword for instance. Ninja Theory complained that they didn't sell enough even thou they did sell like 2,5 mil or something like that. But how many time have that title been resold and sold again.... say maybe 4-5Mil times?

What if that was the original figure that they sold... we would have Heavenly Sword 2 and even 3 by now.

My point is developers work hard and spend millions in bringing us these productions the least we can do is support them.

If this is a way for them to reward first time buyers then great.I am all for it.

Don't get me wrong I am not completely against buying games 2nd hand but i only buy them if I don't think it warrants the full price purchase. Or usually it's games I buy to keep me occupied until the next BIG title releases.

But as far as exclusives go I always buy them first hand.

That is just my opinion and the way I see it. Some of you might disagree but I honestly hope there are more that will agree on my standpoint.

2 up, 0 down

JackC8
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 @ 8:01:07 AM
Reply

I'm wondering if they would need to have the free online - only if you buy it new - displayed rather porminently on the cover of the game? Otherwise, I think somebody would have a pretty good case against them for false advertising.

1 up, 1 down

Highlander
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 @ 11:03:32 AM

I agree about putting a more prominent notification, but I also have to say that when you buy an EA Sports and go online, there is already a separate registration process that you go through, so it's clear that you are creating an account with EA and signing into it, in addition to your PSN account. There is a big fat user license that you have to agree to to go online at all with EA Sports titles, so it's already pretty well spelled out. But a clear notification on the game's packaging would be appreciated (not that GameStop generally have the original packaging...)

2 up, 0 down

Highlander
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 @ 11:10:31 AM
Reply

Someone asked the question, "Why treat buying a used video game as if it were pirated and sold?"

Stop and think for a minute.

You develop a game and launch it. You sell 1.5 million copies - yay. But then you find that there are 2.5 million users. You only got money from 1.5 million of those users.

Now, does it really matter to you as a developer whether the extra 1 million users got their game through second hand purchase or through piracy? Not really, because from your point of view they are all users who paid you nothing.

So, in answer to the question "Why treat buying a used video game as if it were pirated and sold?", because to the developer/publisher, a non-paying user is a non-paying user is a non-paying user. That doesn't mean that developers/publishers see used game buyers as pirates, clearly it's not the same thing, but from a business and finance perspective a lost sale is a lost sale, regardless. So from that perspective used game sales and piracy are effectively the same.

Last edited by Highlander on 5/12/2010 11:12:38 AM

3 up, 0 down

G8GTdriver
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 @ 1:11:19 PM

There is still only 1.5mil users though, sure there are 1 mil different users but there are still only 1.5mil discs floating around and that is ALL EA should be paid for IMO. I totally understand the business side of it, but I'm not an employee or shareholder of EA so I'm not arguing for that side. This is the samething as baggage fees for airlines, just a way to fleece customers for more money. I hope this does NOT workout for EA because if it does we'll see this type of charge spread to other publishers and every possible market were second hand stuff is sold.
I assume this code is linked to ones PSN/XBL ID? So if somes console turns into a paper wieght and purchases a new console they will not be required to pay $10?

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 @ 2:20:39 PM

I'm fairly certain it's linked to your PSN-ID, and not tied to a specific PS3.

1 up, 0 down

BikerSaint
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 @ 6:48:00 PM
Reply

Hey Highlander,
I still have a nagging scenario type question (above) that I was hoping you might be able to answer for me.

Thanks

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 @ 8:39:09 PM

I think that you will get a single use online pass code with the new purchase. If you use the code and then sell the game on, then the second buyer needs to buy the online pass. If you don't use the code and then sell the game, the lucky buyer gets the unused code and can go online.

1 up, 0 down

BikerSaint
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 @ 6:53:47 PM
Reply

No wonder EA's trying to get mor money out of us.

Smells to me like the top bosses have milked the hell out their bonuses, so now they're looking for us to pay the hefty price for them.

And since EA already has a multitude of game titles that sold at least a million plus each lately, then why a $677 million loss right now????

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/05/11/ea-posts-677-million-loss-in-fy2010-alongside-downed-revenues/

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 @ 8:46:39 PM

$677 million in losses?

That's not executive bonuses, that's a huge chunk of lost revenue. Wonder whether some of that is lost sales on 360 thanks to piracy and used game sales...and used game sales on PS3...

This amount of loss is huge, to lose that on a single year, they either took an extraordinary charge on their balance sheet or took a bath on several major games.

0 up, 0 down

Gabriel013
Thursday, May 13, 2010 @ 1:07:20 AM

I think there's some extra ordinary charges going through the books to create that size of loss.

I guess they could have needed to release a large amount of capitalised development costs I suppose.

I always think that just because it states a loss, that is never enough information to get a true picture.

Is that the Net Income Statement loss figure?
Is that after dividends? Taxes?

I'm too cheap to purchase the company accounts to find out :D

0 up, 0 down

THE NTMIDTR
Thursday, May 13, 2010 @ 11:08:14 PM

I'm guessing they took a bath on some crappy games... which is why we all communicate... to avoid misguided and uninformed purchases.

1 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Thursday, May 13, 2010 @ 10:04:09 AM
Reply

I gotta say, I am with Highlander and Ben on this issue.

I used this example in an earlier reply:

If you buy a used cable modem (as I did) from a second hand store or a garage or street sale, does that mean you get free access to the internet service provided by the cable company that distributes that modem?

I say a big ol' fat "I don't think so!!".

Let's face it... Developers design games because it's their job. Not because making us happy and entertained is a fun hobby for them. I would be so pissed off if I didn't get credit for my own work.

If you buy my game, you buy my game. It's yours. You have access to all it's features. Quite frankly, if you sell it to someone else for them to use all my features for FREE... well... you're what I call a bastard and screw you! (This of course is how I would feel as a developer. I'm not implying anyone here is a bastard...)

Basically, you buy that used modem, it's yours to use. Rogers cable isn't going to make you pay for that piece of equipment again or demand a cut of the second sale. However, they have every right to charge you for the additional services that are provided at a continual cost to them!

Don't forget that video games are a luxury and not a necessity. If you legitimately can't afford a game new or can't pay for that access, perhaps it would be wiser to consider a much wiser way of budgeting your funds.

Some people here complaining of this concept often talk about the games they're going to pick up and buy. I make a decent, not great, but decent living, and I buy maybe 4 games a year. I bought my PS3 at release, and to date have only 9 or 10 games. Sure, I could splurge more money, but it's not responsible from a budgetary perspective for me to do so when I could be using that money for extra mortgage payments or treating my wife to dinner. (lol) I dunno... it just seems a little hypocritical to me. (I am not referring to all of you. Just the ones who seem to have enough money to regularly buy games and still object to this.)

I guess I just don't get why some of you don't understand how this makes sense from both a business and an ethical stand-point...

Aren't we lucky enough to know that if we buy the game new, we get unlimited and free access as PS3 owners? That's pretty sweet if you ask me. Why shouldn't the dev's make a small amount of cash from each user? Sure... buy the game used and play it till it turns to dust. But to access something that has a consistent cost to maintain... yeah. Each person that accesses should have to contribute to that cost... especially if they're only asking for a 1 time cost. It's not like it's a recurring cost.

3 up, 0 down

S8N_666
Thursday, May 13, 2010 @ 10:48:27 AM
Reply

Am I to understand this correctly, its for just EA Sports games? If so Good, I don't play repeat titles with just different characters and 5 adjustments to the game.

This will ruin Renting Video games as well. Bye Bye Gamefly and Other Renting Chains your business will be a lot slower now. Looks like I'll be doing more Plat 4 Plat and avoid buying EA's Games except for Dead Space.

0 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Thursday, May 13, 2010 @ 11:17:12 AM
Reply

Guys, I'm sorry to tell you Highlander is dead on, although I feel like he is having trouble fully enunciating the entirety of the issue at hand. Certainly this whole concept has a massive effect on the industry.

Like... frig... if you buy a service/game and after 2 months decide you are bored and never want to play online again, that's your own damn problem. The transfer of property in the real world, does not work that way. Yes, you can buy a used car and not pay the original dealer a cent, however, if your car is still under warranty, (say 60,000 kilometers and 5 years isn't reached) and you buy it USED, you don't get access to those free repairs guaranteed by the car dealer. Why? Because you aren't the original buyer.

Businesses that allow warranties to pass on from user to user are involved in exceptional customer service. It is certainly not a requirement OR the norm. So yeah, you can use that car and drive it into the ground and get great use from it, but the original dealer washes their hands clean of you if it's second hand.

This buying a house crap is rubbish. There are tonnes of fees involved in land transfer, and even if the old owner paid all bills for months, you still have transfer fees and deposits you must pay. And you can't compare mortgages, because that's lending and a whole other issue.

Here's your crappy argument: You buy a game, sell it, and I buy it used. Since you already paid for the game, EA got payment for the online access, so I should be able to play now. That's crap! That theory looks great on it's own, but everything EVERYTHING has a cause and effect relationship, and at the end of the day, EA NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS to turn a profit. They are NOT a non-profit and they are not interested in merely maintaining service.

If you ask me, if 2.5 million different people want to access a feature that has extra cost to the provider, they should have 2.5 million people pay a tiny amount of money to maintain that cost. Not 1.5 million. The PSN can make it work for free because they have countless other measures of offsetting cost.

Write that phrase down: Offsetting cost.

Business thrives by offsetting cost. EA and other dev's have no way of offsetting costs. They don't have their own advertising revenue, they don't have their own online store, they don't have this weird PS HOME thing... Their service is a direct trade. Direct trades must be profitable with every transaction. Sony PS3 offsets the cost of selling PS3's (they LOSE money) through publishing rights on games, the PSN store, etc. EA does NOT.

Look, you simply cannot compare apples to oranges. Traffic on these games must diminish over time if there is not a renewed source of income to maintain it or other method of offsetting costs. You can argue about how devs should want traffic to increase, which is true, but they would only want that if there was income to maintain and sustain profitability.

You folks and your black-and-white business models are truly as Highlander says it is... FLAWED. The gray areas involved and the need to offset cost (memorized that yet?) are so prevalent that they cannot be ignored.

To me, it really does seem like the getting something for nothing mentality. If you ask me, if you pay $50 for a used game, you've been had. Perhaps you deserve to be a little screwed over.

3 up, 1 down

Highlander
Thursday, May 13, 2010 @ 11:24:03 PM

Awesome comment.

1 up, 1 down

mightyone2005
Thursday, May 13, 2010 @ 1:54:21 PM
Reply

American gamers want word with EA it called greed. Would it be same as a GM or any other company to come up ways to charge you to drive a used car made by them because it used and make any money from it.

1 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Thursday, May 13, 2010 @ 2:24:50 PM

Except there's no cost to play used games... just to access a service that has continual cost to the provider.

The original car dealer doesn't make any money on the used sale, which is fine. However, they also revoke any rights to warranty on parts, etc. for that first 60k kilometers or 5 years (whatever the warranty is). Same thing... if you get that 150k kilometer powertrain warranty (or whatever it is in the states), it's null and void if sold to you second hand.

Basically, you get the car cheap. Great. But the original distributor has no obligation to provide continued support for services that are of cost. (ie free repairs on warrantied parts, etc.) Why should video games be any different? Yeah you can get a great game cheap and the developer doesn't get a dime, but why should they have an obligation to you to provide a service that costs them money to maintain? Thing is, they don't. Just like a car dealer.

Read my statement above what you wrote. Just one up. It pretty much addressed exactly what you just said.

1 up, 0 down

PaiNT_kinG
Thursday, May 13, 2010 @ 10:43:35 PM
Reply

interesting.........................me no likey =(

1 up, 0 down

dazy
Thursday, May 13, 2010 @ 11:10:05 PM
Reply

eww. Whiner crybabies with a huge sense of entitlement piss me off.

Why are you missing it? You are purchasing the GAME DISC not the access to the service.

When you buy that disc new, that is a privilege you receive - the pass and all it has to offer. If you choose to buy the disc used for $5 less because you're a cheapass bastard, you are lucky they are providing you with a way to get the pass at all. So you have to pay for the pass now? Well boohoo.

It's like a nice little treat that you get the FREE pass with your NEW game purchase! Yay! So stop whining!

Highlander and Underdog are both right.

0 up, 1 down

Xplaced
Friday, May 14, 2010 @ 11:36:11 AM
Reply

I understand EA wanting to get a cut of resale on something used. However I think they are charging the wrong folks. The end user shouldn't be punished for this. The one costing everyone money here is someone like Gamestop who is reselling a used game totally for their profit and ripping everyone else off.

Game companies and Gamestop need to work out a deal where the game companies get a small return on the resale of a used sale. That makes a lot more sense than charging end users to be able to play online. I can tell you right now, I will never buy a used game, then pay the game company $10 extra to play it online. The person that bought it before me already payed for paying it online, and if they don't have it anymore, then they are not using the already purchased online content. There's still only one person using the online content, hence no more cost to EA regardless of it being sold to someone else.

I really don't understand the argument regarding how it costs EA more for the next person to use the game online. The big factor here that folks seem to be missing is that if I sell a game to someone else, I don't have it anymore. Therefore I can't play it anymore, and I don't "cost" EA to play it online because I'm not playing it anymore! There's still just ONE copy of the game being used online. If it's sold 10 times, who cares? It is still the one copy online at any given time. That is no different at all to EA's servers than if I kept the game and played it for two years every day for 2 hours. If 10 people pass the copy around and play it for the same amount of time, it was still one copy of THAT DISC online at a time. If I copied the disc and sold it then yes, I could see the argument here. But, that isn't the case, so I don't see how this is even an issue.

I can understand buying DLC for a minimal fee. That's new stuff, that makes sense. But, just to play online? That was covered in the original purchase that did pay into EA. As I wrote before, it doesn't matter to EA's servers/equipment at all if one or ten people play the same disc, because only one user at a time can play in this case. The user before doesn't magically retain some type of load on EA's servers. They gave up the right to play online when they sold the game to someone else.

As far as the whole "pass for EXTRA online content", I think that is definitely fair to charge for. It just isn't fair to charge a second-hand user $10 so they can get online at all and just enjoy the game as the first user could.

1 up, 0 down

stgclawson
Sunday, May 16, 2010 @ 12:53:50 PM
Reply

I don't understand why so many on this site have such a hate for Gamestop and buying used. How many of you have sold a car? You bought your car from lets say Ford. Ford got their money. Now 5 years later you sell it used. Ford is NOT getting money the second or third time around. What's the difference in that and games? What about if you sell your clothes at a garage sale. Old Navy or whoever isn't getting a penny - but no one has a problem with that. Why the double standard with all other items being sold used and video games?

Last edited by stgclawson on 5/16/2010 12:58:27 PM

3 up, 0 down

BikerSaint
Saturday, May 22, 2010 @ 9:57:24 PM
Reply

I buy used & I love Gamestop,

and that's probably because I will never sell them anything.

0 up, 0 down

stgclawson
Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 6:01:05 PM

Agreed. I buy from them and take advantage of their Edge Card and Buy 2 get one free. But I almost never trade in my games. I sell them on Amazon instead.

0 up, 0 down

Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories cheats	PSP
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas cheats	PS2
Mortal Kombat: Deception cheats	PS2
Grand Theft Auto IV cheats	PS3
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories cheats	PS2
Gran Turismo 4 cheats	PS2
The Getaway: Black Monday cheats	PS2
Red Dead Redemption cheats	PS3
Countdown Vampires cheats	PS1
Syphon Filter Q&A cheats	PS1

Do you plan to buy a PlayStation Vita this year?
	Yes, I'll definitely get one in 2013.
	No, but I'll get one eventually.
	No, I have no intention of buying the Vita.
	No, I've already got one.

Playstation 3

Playstation 4

PSP

Playstation Vita

Playstation 2

Playstation

Other

PSX Extreme

Site Stats

EA To Launch Online Pass Program

Comments (176 posts)

Leave a Comment

Latest Updates

Popular Cheats

Recent Reviews

Recent Previews

Popular Sections

Extras

Sponsor

Our Poll

Resident Evil: Revelations review	PS3
Metro: Last Light review	PS3
Zombie Tycoon II: Brainhov's Revenge review	PS3
Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon review	PS3
Star Trek: The Video Game review	PS3
Injustice: Gods Among Us review	PS3
Dead Island: Riptide review	PS3
Defiance review	PS3
Sniper: Ghost Warrior 2 review	PS3
Army of Two: The Devil's Cartel review	PS3

The Bureau: XCOM Declassified preview	PS3
Time and Eternity preview	PS3
Ride to Hell: Retribution preview	PS3
Call of Juarez: Gunslinger preview	PS3
Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon preview	PS3
Spartacus Legends preview	PS3
Payday 2 preview	PS3
DUST 514 preview	PS3
Dynasty Warriors 8 preview	PS3
Disgaea D2: A Brighter Darkness preview	PS3