EA to start charging for Online play with used games

[Flack]

Only way EA will stop this is if nobody falls for it, which of course we know isn't going to happen.

That's my other point, one I covered on my blog this morning. Half of the people complaining about this system are still financially supporting it. Electronic Arts doesn't care if you like the system -- they only care if you will support it financially. It's like Jack in the Box tacos. Nobody likes Jack in the Box tacos, but they're two for .99 cents and people buy them. I've seen people, with a Jack in the Box taco in their mouth, tell me how bad Jack in the Box's tacos are. But it doesn't matter, because they bought them! Why would Jack in the Box put one more penny's worth of lettuce or cheese or meat on things that are selling? Nobody just arbitrarily goes around improving their products out of the goodness of their hearts! They do it for sales! When's the last time you bought a car and the salesmen threw something in out of the goodness of his heart? Not bloody likely.

Sure companies like to be liked, but I'm guessing most companies would choose not being liked and still selling product over being adored and filing for bankruptcy.

And we -- WE (waving my arms around wildly) -- are letting them do this to us! You know, Ghost Recon is one my favorite first-person shooting series of games, and I am dying for the new one to come out, and if it comes with the same level of DRM that their last two games came with, I won't buy it. Because if I buy it, I'm telling Ubisoft, "I approve of your DRM bullshit." And I don't, and I won't support it. And if I have to go without playing it, so be it. And if I have to download a pirated copy to play it because I won't support their crap, so be it. And if I have to play it on a console vs. my PC (which is where I would rather play it), so be it. Because I'm NOT going to support that system financially!

But, other people do. People say, "well it's kind of bullshit that I lost all my VC content when my Wii died but oh well, it was just $20." According to Wikipedia, Nintendo has sold over 10 million VC games. So when you buy those games and you lose them and you rebuy them, basically you're telling Nintendo, "you know what? I love this system you have where I can't transfer my old VC content to my new Wii! Thanks!"

There will be a million people complaining about this new Gamers Pass thing, and when the price of used copies of Madden 2010 drop to fifty cents people will say, "well they used to be ten bucks so I guess I could get it for 99 cents and then buy that Gamers Pass, and it'll be like the old price" and they'll do it. And they'll say, "boy this is kind of a crappy system and a rip off," but you will have paid EA and EA doesn't care what you think. EA will be sitting somewhere counting their money, high-fiving each other and talking about what a great idea this Gamers Pass thing is.

[Oobgarm]

I'm really just tired of game companies blaming used sales for their lack of profits, plenty of other industries deal with the same thing yet are still doing fine. For example, if you buy a used hammer at a yard sale you're hurting the companies that make hammers. As I've mentioned earlier, would anyone put up with auto makers forcing people to buy new cars if they needed another one? Just imagine if you weren't allowed to buy used cars, if you wanted another one you could only scrap your old one and could only buy a new one. I'm sure used cars are big sellers so that would greatly affect the industry, but that just won't fly.

But, automobiles notwithstanding, there is no other used market as huge as video games. That's a lot of money these companies are missing out on, and one corporation is making a killing with. I don't blame them one bit for trying to recoup some of those losses somehow. Like I said before, GameStop is going to have to adjust their prices of used games to even out the difference, so it's not really going to affect anyone.

Used cars are a bit different. They're (generally speaking) not a piece of entertainment, are necessary in people's lives, and are expensive and take a long time to pay for. Car dealerships thrive on used car sales and put that money towards buying new stock from their branded manufacturer-so in a way, car companies are seeing a benefit from used sales.


So when you buy those games and you lose them and you rebuy them, basically you're telling Nintendo, "you know what? I love this system you have where I can't transfer my old VC content to my new Wii! Thanks!"

But if you stop and think about it, how many of those sales are re-buys? It's probably not a huge number in the grand scheme. If you're re-buying, you're either A: A moron, or B: A moron. It sucks if you lose them due to hardware failure, but that's a chance you took when you bought them in the first place. I'm sure with enough complaining, Nintendo will get it fixed. Sony and Microsoft already have things tied to an account for re-downloading in case of loss or system failure. Rebuying is throwing money away, but I really don't think it makes that much of a difference in steering the direction of downloadable content.


There will be a million people complaining about this new Gamers Pass thing, and when the price of used copies of Madden 2010 drop to fifty cents people will say, "well they used to be ten bucks so I guess I could get it for 99 cents and then buy that Gamers Pass, and it'll be like the old price" and they'll do it. And they'll say, "boy this is kind of a crappy system and a rip off," but you will have paid EA and EA doesn't care what you think. EA will be sitting somewhere counting their money, high-fiving each other and talking about what a great idea this Gamers Pass thing is.

It's all about perceived value. If someone thinks that adding $10 to the (likely lowered) cost of a used copy of Madden 20xx, then why not? If it's something that they feel they'll get enough use out of to justify the cost, why would it be an issue?

The only people, in the end, that this whole thing is going to hurt are used retailers. They're going to have to give less in trade-in, thereby lowering the number of copies traded in. They'll have to lower the price when selling to the customer to offset the $10 online charge, possibly lessening their margin.

And what about being able to pick up a non-online enabled copy of a game for less if you don't want the online play? No one would be forcing you to drop the extra $10 if you felt that you'd have no interest in the online portion of the title.

Voting with the wallet is a good practice, but all it really gets you is a feeling that you're "sticking it to the man" while nearly EVERYONE ELSE continues on without regard. Remember all those people that said they're going to boycott Madden when they got NFL exclusivity? How is that fool's small victory working out? Doesn't seem like it's affecting sales too much.

Eventually, something will happen that's so unpopular there will be massive backlash against it. It's inevitable. These are all just steps towards it. call it a "slippery slope" or whatever, but 99.9% of the companies in this industry don't care-they're out to "get paid", and they're going to do everything in their power to make sure they do.

[Flack]

It sucks if you lose them due to hardware failure, but that's a chance you took when you bought them in the first place. I'm sure with enough complaining, Nintendo will get it fixed. Sony and Microsoft already have things tied to an account for re-downloading in case of loss or system failure. Rebuying is throwing money away, but I really don't think it makes that much of a difference in steering the direction of downloadable content.

I agree, but should it be a "chance we take"? In other words, why are we (again, "we", collectively as gamers) supporting a system that sells games in this manner? I don't understand why we put up with this for virtual games, but would never put up with it for physical games. Can you imagine what kind of uproar there would be if every time an Xbox 360 RROD'ed and you got a replacement one that none of your old games would work on it? I don't understand why people will put up with things with one delivery system, but not another.

And you're right -- my own little personal boycott probably won't make a difference, but if I feel like it's right, then I'm going to do it. To me it's like not looting a store when everybody else is. Just like we've all heard a million times growing up, "just because everybody else is doing it doesn't make it right." There's a gas station next to my house that, minutes after the 9/11 attacks, raised their prices from $1.29/gallon to $5. No other gas station around me did that, and I swore that I would never get gas there again. It's been, what, 9 years? I haven't been back. As you might imagine, the gas station is still there and people still go there. I don't picket out front out front about it or anything, but if I'm in the car we don't go there and when people ask why I don't go there I tell them why. The place still appears to be flourishing despite my daily coffee purchase and bi-monthly fill ups. Like I said, I can't control what everybody else does, I can only make decisions based on what I think is right.

Like I said on my blog today (and as you mentioned here), this one particular thing (referring to EA) isn't in and of itself that big of a deal. It's not like every company is doing it (yet), and it's not like they're making it retroactive. But it's just one more thing they're doing. It's like they're pushing, and pushing, and pushing, and we all have our own lines as to how much we're going to put up with, but I feel like this entire generation of gaming is just a test to see what all we will put up, and it seems like gamers (in general) are willing to put up with more than I am. I am tired of Sony removing options like OtherOS from my PS3 after I've owned it for a couple of years. I am tired of Amazon removing books from my Kindle after I've already bought them. I'm tired of the possibility of buying virtual games and then losing them if my console dies. I feel like all of these things are invasive. I feel like we have agreed to too much; that we have given these companies too much power, too much control over these games and consoles after we have already bought them.

Like I said earlier, if that makes me sound like some ranting middle-aged gamer that doesn't like all this newfangled technology, then so be it. Back in the day, I mean, pre-online gaming days, when you bought a game that was it and there wasn't a goddamn thing Sony or Nintendo or Sega anyone else could do about it. If there was a recall they could ask you nicely to return your game, but they couldn't come into your house and remove it! I have games in my game room that are 30 years old. 30 years from now, no one -- NO ONE -- will be playing Virtual Console games. And I'll still have all these old games of mine and they will be 60 years old.

I don't know why but I just feel like this news story is the one that broke the camel's back for me. And it has nothing to do with EA. It's just the fact that suddenly I see the days of buying a game, taking it home, and owning it forever are ending. The days of saying "this is mine" are coming to an end. You cannot pick up a virtual anything and say, "this is mine." The reality is, it's yours as long as they want to let you have it. Earlier this year when people's PS3s stopped working because the console "thought" it was a leap year and it wasn't, that was an eye opener. Some people's games -- even games that weren't online capable -- stopped working. I think we have this entire network of connectivity that we don't even fully understand yet.

The more I type the more I realize I'm just coming off as some prehistoric barbarian frothing at the mouth. I don't expect anyone to agree with me and I don't expect anyone to change their spending habits based off a word I've said. But you know, when you add it all up ... it just kind of seems like the old ways were better than the current ways, and no matter what you think of the current ways, they will almost definitely be better than what's in store for us next generation.

I'm heading back to my mancave ... which is, of course, located uphill, in the snow.

[Oobgarm]

I agree, but should it be a "chance we take"? In other words, why are we (again, "we", collectively as gamers) supporting a system that sells games in this manner?

I'm not saying we all should, but I think it's something that everyone who's going to buy should understand. I don't like their DRM method, which is why I've only bought 3 VC titles and 3 WiiWare titles. If I end up losing them, at least I got my money's worth out of them while I had them. Compare that to the 80+ XBLA games I've bought-at least I can get those back when/if my machine dies. (and it has, twice) Again, Nintendo's not doing it right-they take the blame for the poor implementation.


It's just the fact that suddenly I see the days of buying a game, taking it home, and owning it forever are ending. The days of saying "this is mine" are coming to an end. You cannot pick up a virtual anything and say, "this is mine." The reality is, it's yours as long as they want to let you have it. Earlier this year when people's PS3s stopped working because the console "thought" it was a leap year and it wasn't, that was an eye opener. Some people's games -- even games that weren't online capable -- stopped working. I think we have this entire network of connectivity that we don't even fully understand yet.

And I agree with you completely on this-everything's changing. This whole network we don't understand yet...the EA online charge is part of a way to figure out how to harness it all. The internet as a whole has grown exponentially at a very high rate and even the government(yeah, yeah I know) hasn't been able to get it all right yet. Many gray areas in all facets have yet to be fully explained, and we're seeing one of them right here. It's more of a trial-and-error thing, I think.

[jcalder8]

Sure EA has the right to tie an online service to each game but who is telling the consumer this? Will EA plaster it all over their packaging? "If this game is being sold used you will have to fork out an extra $10 to play online!" Or will it be the retailers who will be informing the buying public? "Oh yeah by the way you may not want to pick up this copy of Madden that we makes total profit on because then you'll have to shell out an extra $10 to use all the features that are listed on the back of the box"

There will be no lowering of used sales prices. If Madden comes out at 60, Gamestop and others will still charge 55 for the used ones. The only change that will probably happen is that they will give less for the trade ins.

I can hear the lawyers coming up with what will be said by the managers: "Since the game is being sold as used there are some features that may or may not work. Unfortunately, since we have no way to verify we are unable to lower the price any"

How about the kids who buy these games used who now have to go bug their parents for their credit cards so that they can play online. It's just one more hoop to jump through for the people who have bought used.

To me this is the worst part.

Sure PC games have been doing things like this for years but a lot of that has to do with pirating. This is strictly based on greed from EA wanting to make sure that in 2011 everyone buys new so they don't have to go through the hassle that they had to this year.

[TonyTheTiger]

I agree, but should it be a "chance we take"? In other words, why are we (again, "we", collectively as gamers) supporting a system that sells games in this manner? I don't understand why we put up with this for virtual games, but would never put up with it for physical games. Can you imagine what kind of uproar there would be if every time an Xbox 360 RROD'ed and you got a replacement one that none of your old games would work on it? I don't understand why people will put up with things with one delivery system, but not another.

And you're right -- my own little personal boycott probably won't make a difference, but if I feel like it's right, then I'm going to do it. To me it's like not looting a store when everybody else is. Just like we've all heard a million times growing up, "just because everybody else is doing it doesn't make it right." There's a gas station next to my house that, minutes after the 9/11 attacks, raised their prices from $1.29/gallon to $5. No other gas station around me did that, and I swore that I would never get gas there again. It's been, what, 9 years? I haven't been back. As you might imagine, the gas station is still there and people still go there. I don't picket out front out front about it or anything, but if I'm in the car we don't go there and when people ask why I don't go there I tell them why. The place still appears to be flourishing despite my daily coffee purchase and bi-monthly fill ups. Like I said, I can't control what everybody else does, I can only make decisions based on what I think is right.

Like I said on my blog today (and as you mentioned here), this one particular thing (referring to EA) isn't in and of itself that big of a deal. It's not like every company is doing it (yet), and it's not like they're making it retroactive. But it's just one more thing they're doing. It's like they're pushing, and pushing, and pushing, and we all have our own lines as to how much we're going to put up with, but I feel like this entire generation of gaming is just a test to see what all we will put up, and it seems like gamers (in general) are willing to put up with more than I am. I am tired of Sony removing options like OtherOS from my PS3 after I've owned it for a couple of years. I am tired of Amazon removing books from my Kindle after I've already bought them. I'm tired of the possibility of buying virtual games and then losing them if my console dies. I feel like all of these things are invasive. I feel like we have agreed to too much; that we have given these companies too much power, too much control over these games and consoles after we have already bought them.

Like I said earlier, if that makes me sound like some ranting middle-aged gamer that doesn't like all this newfangled technology, then so be it. Back in the day, I mean, pre-online gaming days, when you bought a game that was it and there wasn't a goddamn thing Sony or Nintendo or Sega anyone else could do about it. If there was a recall they could ask you nicely to return your game, but they couldn't come into your house and remove it! I have games in my game room that are 30 years old. 30 years from now, no one -- NO ONE -- will be playing Virtual Console games. And I'll still have all these old games of mine and they will be 60 years old.

I don't know why but I just feel like this news story is the one that broke the camel's back for me. And it has nothing to do with EA. It's just the fact that suddenly I see the days of buying a game, taking it home, and owning it forever are ending. The days of saying "this is mine" are coming to an end. You cannot pick up a virtual anything and say, "this is mine." The reality is, it's yours as long as they want to let you have it. Earlier this year when people's PS3s stopped working because the console "thought" it was a leap year and it wasn't, that was an eye opener. Some people's games -- even games that weren't online capable -- stopped working. I think we have this entire network of connectivity that we don't even fully understand yet.

The more I type the more I realize I'm just coming off as some prehistoric barbarian frothing at the mouth. I don't expect anyone to agree with me and I don't expect anyone to change their spending habits based off a word I've said. But you know, when you add it all up ... it just kind of seems like the old ways were better than the current ways, and no matter what you think of the current ways, they will almost definitely be better than what's in store for us next generation.

I'm heading back to my mancave ... which is, of course, located uphill, in the snow.

I respect people standing up for what they believe in and I'd make the exact same decision regarding that gas station. And I think your fears about modern interconnectivity are not entirely foil hat worthy. The PS3 situation and Ubisoft's "must be online to play but, oops, our servers are down" issue do show that there's a gradual shift in how digital media works. So I perfectly understand that the trend is off putting.

I don't, however, necessarily think this is going to be a continuous downward spiral. The reason we're in this situation is because we're in a transitional period. Transitional periods are often characterized by a fair bit of anarchy since the law and regulatory infrastructure (even as basic as the court of public opinion) haven't caught up yet. We still don't know the full legal power of EULAs or whether or not certain forms of DRM are legitimate. The realm of "internet law" and the implications of the DMCA haven't been extensively tested in the courts and it's still too early for the market to respond with any definitive "No, that's going too far." Remember that it's only this generation that software patches and BIOS updates have become the norm for console gaming. I think we need to wait out the storm before we start assessing the damage.

[Bojay1997]

I respect people standing up for what they believe in and I'd make the exact same decision regarding that gas station. And I think your fears about modern interconnectivity are not entirely foil hat worthy. The PS3 situation and Ubisoft's "must be online to play but, oops, our servers are down" issue do show that there's a gradual shift in how digital media works. So I perfectly understand that the trend is off putting.

I don't, however, necessarily think this is going to be a continuous downward spiral. The reason we're in this situation is because we're in a transitional period. Transitional periods are often characterized by a fair bit of anarchy since the law and regulatory infrastructure (even as basic as the court of public opinion) haven't caught up yet. We still don't know the full legal power of EULAs or whether or not certain forms of DRM are legitimate. The realm of "internet law" and the implications of the DMCA haven't been extensively tested in the courts and it's still too early for the market to respond with any definitive "No, that's going too far." Remember that it's only this generation that software patches and BIOS updates have become the norm for console gaming. I think we need to wait out the storm before we start assessing the damage.

I would strongly disagree with you that internet law and DMCA have anything to do with whether or not publishers will continue to push for new means through which they can profit from or eliminate the used game market. Even if the supreme court comes back in a case and rules that consumers have the right to freely sell and transfer digital content (which is very, very unlikely), I can't imagine any legal basis for forcing publishers to maintain game servers at their own expense for the benefit of used game purchasers. We are well out of the transitional period and with the dominance of iTunes and other digital content systems already destroying the previous record company sales model and download services already gaining a significant percentage of market share on the PC side, it is only a matter of time until more and more companies adopt the EA model. Personally, I don't blame them and I fully understand the business reasons for doing so. As a collector, it raises concerns, however, as it is not really possible anymore to collect the "entire" game in this era of day-one DLC, server based gaming, etc...

[Zthun]

I would strongly disagree with you that internet law and DMCA have anything to do with whether or not publishers will continue to push for new means through which they can profit from or eliminate the used game market. Even if the supreme court comes back in a case and rules that consumers have the right to freely sell and transfer digital content (which is very, very unlikely), I can't imagine any legal basis for forcing publishers to maintain game servers at their own expense for the benefit of used game purchasers. We are well out of the transitional period and with the dominance of iTunes and other digital content systems already destroying the previous record company sales model and download services already gaining a significant percentage of market share on the PC side, it is only a matter of time until more and more companies adopt the EA model. Personally, I don't blame them and I fully understand the business reasons for doing so. As a collector, it raises concerns, however, as it is not really possible anymore to collect the "entire" game in this era of day-one DLC, server based gaming, etc...

This is in really poor taste, but this whole scene is just like an abusive husband situation. The husband starts out normal like anyone else; then, he snaps at his wife. Of course this was just one time, so he apologizes and she forgives him. Then he snaps again, he apologizes and she forgives him. Eventually, this becomes routine, and now he can call her a fat ass bitch all he wants and she won't do anything about it cause she's so used to it. Then he hits her for the first time. Apologizes, promises he won't do it again, and she forgives him. Then he does it again, and again, and again, and the next thing you know, he's whupping her ass every day on an alcoholic binge while she's scared shit-less of him and won't leave him because of her fear that he's going to kill her.

In the above situation, it was baby steps. He psychologically got her used to his abusive nature and in the end, he finally overstepped his bounds, but she was so far into it that she didn't want to risk her life by leaving him. This situation is similar with EA. Eventually, they will overstep their bounds, but people will be buried in so deep psychologically with the way the gaming industry is that they will think that this kind of stuff is normal. What's worse, is people get very addicted to gaming, so no matter what EA, or Ubisoft does, people will pay. Gaming is almost like cigarettes - thetruth.com can mouth off about them all they want, but cigarette sales still go strong.

I've done this song and dance before with World of Warcraft. When Blizzard made everything light years easier near the end of Burning Crusade, I left. Did my leaving affect anything. Nope, in fact, quite the opposite. Blizzard got about 2 more million customers. The fact is, this is a business, and business' are out there to make money - like it or not, they are going to choose the model that will net them the most profit, regardless of what customers want.

[Icarus Moonsight]

As a collector, it raises concerns, however, as it is not really possible anymore to collect the "entire" game in this era of day-one DLC, server based gaming, etc...

Sure there is. Wait for the system to be commercially dead and defunct and then go the 'pirate route'. Won't make one iota of difference anyway. Since content that existed as a digital copy-only has absolutely no physical counterpart as traditionally we would hunt for after the systems lifespan has reached it's end. Besides, I got more time to wait for these guys plans to unroll as they may than patience for it all to fail, maybe. I'll just wait until they simply move on to the new thing and forget about exercising content control and rights on that specific piece of hardware. Since they are not offering me a good I am willing to pay for, I'll wait until it's given up on as a profit venture at open market and dredge my nets on the gray market.

That's the eventuality of this digital distribution model... When people figure out all they are paying for is the privilege to play this content when it's new in a 'sanctioned' method (not even getting a physical item/token for their token of value [read: money] in exchange), they will make an economic calculation. Pay in money and enjoy now, or pay in time and enjoy later. Many are just going to wait until the stuff is free. For very good reasons. And when enough people follow through, no more new games. They're going to eat their own market. I'll laugh, at first.

[TonyTheTiger]

This system isn't really going to have much of an effect on how people play online or even when they do. Servers getting shut down has been par for the course since dedicated servers became the norm. The alternative is to go back to the days of typing in your pal's IP address which I'm certain nobody wants. Just look at how the Wii's friend code system is treated. I think people are willing to sacrifice permanent online capability for an extremely good online service for as long as the game is relevant. So EA's new system here isn't really going to change much.

The only substantial change is that now used copies of EA games are technically $10 more expensive if you want online access. The bright spot is that it could drive down the prices of those used games to compensate.

Frankly, I'm more interested in how GameStop will balance this code system with their shelf copy policy. I can envision a situation where customers and employees ransack those codes.

[Oobgarm]

Frankly, I'm more interested in how GameStop will balance this code system with their shelf copy policy. I can envision a situation where customers and employees ransack those codes.

Simple: They keep all manuals/inserts behind the counter with the disc itself. If codes are stolen by an employee, then they will no longer have a job there. Kinda standard, really.

I'm interested to see how it affects pricing and how code delivery will occur.

[TonyTheTiger]

How the hell can you tell which employee swiped the code and when? It's not like there's anything to actually steal. In fact, using the code of a shelf copy might not even count as theft since theft is most often described as an unlawful taking of property. If a person doesn't actually take the card and simply memorizes the code, that memorized information might not qualify as property.

And remember something. This is already a problem, just a smaller one. Nintendo puts those registration codes in their games people can use to earn coins on the official site. GameStop doesn't take any precautions to protect those codes. They never guarantee the code will work for used copies, of course, but even shelf copies that are supposed to be pristine albeit unwrapped might not have working codes for this very reason. I actually don't know what GameStop would do if somebody returned with a shelf copy and complained about the code not working.

But since most people don't really care about registering their Wii games to get a Mario hat or some other trinket, they don't complain in large numbers. And since the benefit of swiping the codes is so limited, most people don't do it anyway. But what happens if people figure out swiping the codes from shelf copies saves them $10 on their used copy? I think it's going to become pretty common. Then what happens when somebody's new $60 copy of Madden turns out to not have a working online code?

[chrisbid]

This is in really poor taste, but this whole scene is just like an abusive husband situation. The husband starts out normal like anyone else; then, he snaps at his wife. Of course this was just one time, so he apologizes and she forgives him. Then he snaps again, he apologizes and she forgives him. Eventually, this becomes routine, and now he can call her a fat ass bitch all he wants and she won't do anything about it cause she's so used to it. Then he hits her for the first time. Apologizes, promises he won't do it again, and she forgives him. Then he does it again, and again, and again, and the next thing you know, he's whupping her ass every day on an alcoholic binge while she's scared shit-less of him and won't leave him because of her fear that he's going to kill her.

In the above situation, it was baby steps. He psychologically got her used to his abusive nature and in the end, he finally overstepped his bounds, but she was so far into it that she didn't want to risk her life by leaving him.



worst analogy ever

[chrisbid]

How the hell can you tell which employee swiped the code and when? It's not like there's anything to actually steal. In fact, using the code of a shelf copy might not even count as theft since theft is most often described as an unlawful taking of property. If a person doesn't actually take the card and simply memorizes the code, that memorized information might not qualify as property.

And remember something. This is already a problem, just a smaller one. Nintendo puts those registration codes in their games people can use to earn coins on the official site. GameStop doesn't take any precautions to protect those codes. They never guarantee the code will work for used copies, of course, but even shelf copies that are supposed to be pristine albeit unwrapped might not have working codes for this very reason. I actually don't know what GameStop would do if somebody returned with a shelf copy and complained about the code not working.

But since most people don't really care about registering their Wii games to get a Mario hat or some other trinket, they don't complain in large numbers. And since the benefit of swiping the codes is so limited, most people don't do it anyway. But what happens if people figure out swiping the codes from shelf copies saves them $10 on their used copy? I think it's going to become pretty common. Then what happens when somebody's new $60 copy of Madden turns out to not have a working online code?


youre assuming everyone is going to play online and use their codes. are there any hard numbers in regard to the percentage of madden players that regularly play online? i would be shocked if the number exceeded 50%.

i would be even more shocked if 50% of used game consumers end up plopping down the ten dollars to go online. ea will never announce the numbers if the program is a failure, but i suspect in the end it will neither slow used game sales much, nor will it add much revenue.

[PapaStu]

Everyone is forgetting that within 24 months of release the games online servers won't even be running. Buying Madden 11 in '13' has a huge likelyness of being a offline game only as is, you won't have to worry about paying anything extra.

[Bojay1997]

Sure there is. Wait for the system to be commercially dead and defunct and then go the 'pirate route'. Won't make one iota of difference anyway. Since content that existed as a digital copy-only has absolutely no physical counterpart as traditionally we would hunt for after the systems lifespan has reached it's end. Besides, I got more time to wait for these guys plans to unroll as they may than patience for it all to fail, maybe. I'll just wait until they simply move on to the new thing and forget about exercising content control and rights on that specific piece of hardware. Since they are not offering me a good I am willing to pay for, I'll wait until it's given up on as a profit venture at open market and dredge my nets on the gray market.

That's the eventuality of this digital distribution model... When people figure out all they are paying for is the privilege to play this content when it's new in a 'sanctioned' method (not even getting a physical item/token for their token of value [read: money] in exchange), they will make an economic calculation. Pay in money and enjoy now, or pay in time and enjoy later. Many are just going to wait until the stuff is free. For very good reasons. And when enough people follow through, no more new games. They're going to eat their own market. I'll laugh, at first.

But that opens up the whole issue of whether or not digital content is really collectible. Piracy may solve the playability concerns down the road, assuming enough pirates actually care about a particular game or piece of DLC to make it available, but it does nothing for collectors. I don't collect hard drives full of data and doubt many people here will either. I also disagree with you that the DLC model will fail. It's already generating massive amounts of revenue for publishers and it shows no signs of slowing down.

[The 1 2 P]

But, other people do. People say, "well it's kind of bullshit that I lost all my VC content when my Wii died but oh well, it was just $20." According to Wikipedia, Nintendo has sold over 10 million VC games. So when you buy those games and you lose them and you rebuy them, basically you're telling Nintendo, "you know what? I love this system you have where I can't transfer my old VC content to my new Wii! Thanks!"


This is something I have been thinking alot about lately because of an article I read a few days ago. Apparently if you upgrade to the new slicker looking extra featured black model Wii, you can not transfer your game purchases from your previous white one due to Nintendo linking all game purchases to a single console and not an actual account. That is a really big problem in my opinion and one they need to address as soon as possible.


Everyone is forgetting that within 24 months of release the games online servers won't even be running. Buying Madden 11 in '13' has a huge likelyness of being a offline game only as is, you won't have to worry about paying anything extra.

While this is true for sports games, EA is planning to eventually use this on all of their games(which will probably be rolled out no later than next year). So that means if you want to buy a one or two year old Burnout, Medal of Honor, Bad Company, Mirror's Edge or Dead Space used, you would still have to pay for the online portion as these types of games tend to keep their servers up longer than the typical sports game servers.

[gepeto]

Just sell the used game 15.00 cheaper to compensate. Gamestop still makes out in the end.

[Griking]

/shrug

The way I see it is that gaming all changed once consoles got hard drives and started connecting to the Internet. We really don't own the games we're buying now, we're just purchasing rights to use them as the manufacturer sees fit.

This is all just another step towards us just paying for the right to play a game that's completely streamed over the internet. The only thing that will be on the media that we buy in the near future will be the larger graphic, sound and other files that are too bulky to stream.

[heybtbm]

I buy all my current gen games new, and the ones I'm on the fence about I wait until they're $20 or so. So do most people. Not sure what demographic this is "hurting". Gamestop shareholders? Boo hoo.

Only 12 year olds and unemployed dirtbags buy used games anyway. KIDDING.

(relax)

[Leo_A]

I buy all my current gen games new, and the ones I'm on the fence about I wait until they're $20 or so. So do most people. Not sure what demographic this is "hurting". Gamestop shareholders? Boo hoo.


It's hurting the demographic that doesn't buy games like you do.

I can't believe that had to be explained to you.

[heybtbm]

It's hurting the demographic that doesn't buy games like you do.

My emphasis was more on the word "hurting". No one is being hurt. How ridiculous.


I can't believe that had to be explained to you.

You need to let it go.

[Icarus Moonsight]

But that opens up the whole issue of whether or not digital content is really collectible. Piracy may solve the playability concerns down the road, assuming enough pirates actually care about a particular game or piece of DLC to make it available, but it does nothing for collectors. I don't collect hard drives full of data and doubt many people here will either. I also disagree with you that the DLC model will fail. It's already generating massive amounts of revenue for publishers and it shows no signs of slowing down.

It's not even an issue, files are not collectible in the same way that carts and disks are. What's next? Renting food? If you are wanting to kick off this file collecting hobby, I'll join in on the ground floor! I'll sell you and anyone else miscellaneous files in bulk... Minimum order is 10,000 units at $.01 per unit. Oh, you don't want to pay for files? That's what I was saying! LOL

I stated "fail, maybe." I think there are enough idiots and suckers to fleece, but I do question how long it will last... It will certainly fail with me, and that's all that matters to my wallet.

[ScourDX]

But that opens up the whole issue of whether or not digital content is really collectible. Piracy may solve the playability concerns down the road, assuming enough pirates actually care about a particular game or piece of DLC to make it available, but it does nothing for collectors. I don't collect hard drives full of data and doubt many people here will either. I also disagree with you that the DLC model will fail. It's already generating massive amounts of revenue for publishers and it shows no signs of slowing down.

I got tired of spending little bit of money purchasing every damn DLC. I already paid $60 on Dragon Age and EA expect me to purchase addition content. Instead of the full game purchased at $60, it is now $120 or more. Stuff like this makes me want to download pirated DLC.

[The 1 2 P]

Instead of the full game purchased at $60, it is now $120 or more. Stuff like this makes me want to download pirated DLC.

Or you could just wait for the "game of the year" edition that gets released later with ALL the DLC included for the original $60 price. Thats what I did for Gears of War 2 and ended up only spending $20(after discounts) for the original game, all the map packs and the bonus campaign mission. Same deal with Fallout 3. Waiting sucks but it has it's advantages8-)

[Leo_A]

My emphasis was more on the word "hurting". No one is being hurt. How ridiculous.

That was your entire point?

Obviously it does negatively affect those that regularly play online but purchase their games used. It raises the cost of this hobby for that portion of EA's customer base, which is the purpose of this decision.

[Smoke]

I stopped buying EA games after my Spore reached it's limit. I'll never buy an EA game in my life ever again, even though i want Dead Space 2 and Bad Company 2 so bad. EA will be the ones who kill gaming.

[Griking]

Nevermind, I should have read the rest of the comments before posting.

[The 1 2 P]

THQ joins (http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/215229/ufc-2010-to-include-free-multiplayer-with-new-purchases-5-download-for-used-copies) the fun. And soon Ubisoft (http://www.industrygamers.com/news/ubisoft-eyeing-eas-project-10/) will too.

[Beefy Hits]

What's even worse is that they close the servers down within a year.

[kupomogli]

I'm throwing Activision in that I think they're going to follow suit.

[Viper187]

I never cared for EA to begin with, and I've been more pissed at them ever since they tried to ruin GTA and other titles by trying to buy Take Two. The gaming industry just continues to swirl down the drain, IMO. Midway made better sports games than EA could ever hope to. NBA Jam, Hangtime, and Gretzky Hockey were awesome. I loved those titles, and I don't even like sports! They only have Burnout cause they swallowed Criterion, right? Sure, they have NFS, which is playable. They mostly repolish the same shit repeatedly and call it sequels, much like Yukes does with their crappy wrestling games. What the hell happened to AKI? They made some of the best-selling wrestling games in history for N64, but then they just disappeared.

We have to put up with 360s that die all the time. I'm on my 3rd 360, and it would probably be double that if I actually played every day like I used to. I heard even the most recent revision, Jasper, has issues because they cheaped out on cooling after they shrunk the GPU. PS3 hardware has its own insane issues because something as simple as putting in a faster hard drive can break games. How stupid is that!?!? Yet, this is the gaming industry that everyone puts up with now. Buggy games, expensive online content that's encrypted out the ass, etc. It's almost good that I'm still stuck on dialup, because I wouldn't be able to resist playing Halo 3 and other titles online if I had the ability to. If this digital distribution doesn't kill gaming, the motion control crap will though. It's utterly insane what Nintendo does to otherwise awesome games. That stupid remote is no way to play Punch-Out when there' no logical reason not to allow the classic controller to work on games like that. The New Super Mario Bros and Mariokart wii have the same issue. I own 95 Xbox360 games, 3 Wii games, and 6 or 7 PS3 games.

PC gaming gets expensive and irritating too though. There's very little reason to buy games when you have to crack them to get around the lame DRM/activation or play without the disc in the drive. Better yet, some of the anti-piracy stuff has even been known to cause security holes in windows in the past or only work on certain OSes; Starfuck and Sony's music rootkit crap come to mind. It's even worse when the game actually bitches about emulation software like Alcohol/Daemon Tools being installed on your system. I stopped activating software the first time I had to call Microshaft to get my student copy of Office 2000 unlocked after a reformat.

I notice people comparing new game sales to movies in the theater. How many people actually WANT to go to theaters anymore? Why go get raped for 2 tickets and popcorn when I've got a 50 inch TV and surround sound at home!? The only reason to go to theaters now is because Hollywood is still pumping life into a dead industry by withholding the DVD releases! For the price of 2 tickets to an evening showing, you could go buy a new DVD to watch and see the new blockbuster movie later. Once again though, people choose to support these shitty theaters and allow them to remain in business. It's like iTunes. The music on iTunes isn't even CD quality! It's lossy, DRM-infested crap, but people buy it because they either don't know any better or don't care. Offer up some nice, unmolested FLAC/WAV files and I'll happily buy them digitally. Otherwise, I'll buy a used CD for $2 and rip it to my HDD in the format I prefer to listen to.

[duffmanth]

This will probably become an industry wide trend very soon.

[skaar]

http://kotaku.com/5503312/nintendos-new-ds-will-still-force-you-to-re+buy-your-digital-games


Nintendo's DSi XL hardware manual plainly states both that all DSiWare downloads "are for use only on a single Nintendo DSi." The manual also indicates that "software downloaded from Nintendo DSi Shop is licensed to you, not sold." What that adds up to is that, while Nintendo is selling people a new DSi to buy, it currently expects its consumers to pay for downloaded games all over again — or do without them.

Licensed to you, not sold.

[garagesaleking!!]

I cant believe I just saw this thread now. This is craziness. I have bought madden on release week pretty much the past 4 years, this really turns me away from EA. Other than madden and bad company 2 they have never offered me much.

[norkusa]

Don't know if this is a sign of things to come, but EA's Skate 3 was released a few weeks ago which uses a activation code to access shared content and the online portion of this game is completely dead. Most sessions I join are empty and it'll take on average 10-15 minutes for someone to show up. I've only played one game so far where the lobby was filled with 6 skaters.

Don't know if it has anything to do with this new "Skate Share" code business but it looks like this game is a complete bomb. The official Xbox forums for it are barely active too. Maybe it's everyone's way of saying they don't want these online access codes in their games.

[Kitsune Sniper]

http://kotaku.com/5503312/nintendos-new-ds-will-still-force-you-to-re+buy-your-digital-games



Licensed to you, not sold.

This also happens with Wii systems.

It's bullshit.

[Ed Oscuro]

None of this is new; EA's Battlefield 2 and then 2142 were there years ago. For Battlefield 2, the serial numbers get tied to accounts (I bought a BF2 complete pack used and only got to add Special Forces to my basic BF2 installation; the Euro and US invasion pack keys were used and thus not available anymore). For BF2142 the main game was again registered to somebody else when I bought a used copy off eBay - then I got lucky and found it cheap at Goodwill.

None of this bodes well for the relationship between gamers and companies; it's bad when I can feel a victory at having gotten their content at no profit to them. This is why I like the Steam model: When you buy something, theoretically you can keep playing that across different formats - true to form, Valve has invited everybody to get on a Mac to download play Portal there. The costs allow them to be just that generous compared to retail, where the expenses of making and moving discs and mostly empty boxes dictate everything.

I don't blame the retail companies for having to face off against used games the way they are trying to; it's been a simmering confrontation for what feels like nearly a decade.

The Valve system takes away the rationale for trading games, gives more profits to the developers, people aren't out there charging outrageous amounts to get copies of old games, and you can still wait them out for good price drops that wouldn't be possible at a brick and mortar store where they really need to charge $50 years after a release to justify having kept it on a shelf. I think that, viewed that way, this really is a story about the evils of physical media. (I know "data wants to be free" is a common argument, but somebody has to pay somewhere down the line).

We are going to have to get used to not having something physical to show for games. Really, people should be rejoicing that games are so easy to distribute that people can send games for free over the Internet, versus the old days where you'd have to go to a hobbyist swap meet to get copies of somebody's Apple // or DOS opus or whatever the hell.

[Viper187]

We are going to have to get used to not having something physical to show for games. Really, people should be rejoicing that games are so easy to distribute that people can send games for free over the Internet, versus the old days where you'd have to go to a hobbyist swap meet to get copies of somebody's Apple // or DOS opus or whatever the hell.

You might, but I won't. Whether it makes any difference or not, people need to take a stand against that DRM-infested shit. I want my physical media, and I'll never activate games or software to use them. Sad the industry learned nothing from Assassin's Creed 2. How long were the people with legit copies completely screwed while the pirates kept on playing? heheh.

[Ed Oscuro]

Whether it makes any difference or not, people need to take a stand against that DRM-infested shit.
I still do care, actually, and I really care more about DRM and (to a lesser esxtent) lack of discs because the vast majority of my gaming these last couple years has been single player content, so DRM really hurts me. (I find the old-fashioned "disc check" the most effective deterrent still.) The ability to plug into Steam and pay $6 straight to the developer is a lot better than doing a dance on eBay or Amazon and hoping for a disc not encrusted with shit and disease, and with an un-used key. (Sloppy seconds are baaad.)

OK, DRM-infested shit = bad. So is rotten food, that's bad. What about stuff on Steam, however? Not a whole hell of a lot there DRM-wise (that I know about anyway (http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS248&=&q=steam+starforce&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)), and it might even be appropriate for EA because there's really not an obvious way to hack into the multiplayer when you don't have an account. Even if you did hack into individual multiplayer sessions, you'd be missing out on stats and a number of the other features that go with having an account to your name. (Hence most of the attacks on Steam multiplayer have been focused on stealing accounts, rather than on hacking into them to create spurious new ones.)

Valve's system makes clear that it is easier and better to focus on securing the services that are controlled by the distributor (in this case Steam). It doesn't really upset people, dedicated hax0rz can still distribute broken copies of singleplayer games, and multiplayer gamers can be happy with a relatively cheaterrific-neutering secure service. All of this requires 0 discs!

In other news, I wonder how many dead people have been awarded the Halo in TF2.

That's gotta be good for something. Maybe another Achievement. (Collect a wearable while dead IRL. - image is an open hand sticking out of a grave)

[Poofta!]

personally i think its a good move. games are costing companies increasingly more and more to make. instead of raising prices to 70$ or taking forever to drop them, or totally BS anti-piracy methods like net-connection-a-must-to-play, i prefer this.

10$ aint much. and if you like the game and developer, you should be supporting them to begin with. buying used makes the developer about as much money as pirating it outright.

and like everything in this world, if you cant afford it, you cant have it. =/
and if youre really down on your luck, perhaps your money is best spent on things aside from games.
its not like theres nothing to play, play some old games and save up meanwhile. the cutting edge of anything (be it automobiles, games or technology) will always cost premium and not be attainable to everyone.

[Ed Oscuro]

personally i think its a good move. games are costing companies increasingly more and more to make. instead of raising prices to 70$ or taking forever to drop them, or totally BS anti-piracy methods like net-connection-a-must-to-play, i prefer this.

10$ aint much. and if you like the game and developer, you should be supporting them to begin with. buying used makes the developer about as much money as pirating it outright.

and like everything in this world, if you cant afford it, you cant have it. =/
And that's pretty much everything that needed sayin'.

[Gameguy]

I recently downloaded Steam so I could get Portal, overall it's fine with me but I just don't like how it's always loaded into RAM even when I'm not using it. I just hope that I'll be able to uninstall it when I'm done. I'm probably worrying over nothing but I'm nervous of installing software that can't be uninstalled properly.

[Leo_A]

How many people actually WANT to go to theaters anymore? Why go get raped for 2 tickets and popcorn when I've got a 50 inch TV and surround sound at home!?

Half the fun is eating the popcorn.

[YoshiM]

The gaming industry just continues to swirl down the drain, IMO.
It depends what you mean by "swirl down the drain". If you look at it from a broad perspective, not much has really changed since the 1990's except for online (including play and downloadable content/games). Good stuff is still being made.


Midway made better sports games than EA could ever hope to. NBA Jam, Hangtime, and Gretzky Hockey were awesome. I loved those titles, and I don't even like sports!
Those three titles are essentially "arcade" titles (though I'm not sure about that Gretzky game) for ease of jumping in and playing. No real "seasons", no injuries or anything simulation-like. EA's sports titles were always a "balance" between sim (stats, trades, etc.) and fast action. Same with titles from Sega Sports, 989, 2K Games, etc., etc. So "better" really is "preference". You prefer the arcade sports games. Doesn't necessarily make them "better" (the millions of Madden fans would probably disagree).


They mostly repolish the same shit repeatedly and call it sequels, much like Yukes does with their crappy wrestling games. What the hell happened to AKI? They made some of the best-selling wrestling games in history for N64, but then they just disappeared.
Um, again, this is a practice that's been going on for quite some time and not from just EA. Even your NBA Jam had its different iterations-same game but just some different stuff.

As for AKI, they split from THQ and started doing other titles. I think they did Ultimate Muscle and the Def Jam fighting games.


We have to put up with 360s that die all the time. I'm on my 3rd 360, and it would probably be double that if I actually played every day like I used to. I heard even the most recent revision, Jasper, has issues because they cheaped out on cooling after they shrunk the GPU.
Can't argue about that. I'm on my second.


PS3 hardware has its own insane issues because something as simple as putting in a faster hard drive can break games. How stupid is that!?!?
Um, source? First I've heard of this.


Yet, this is the gaming industry that everyone puts up with now. Buggy games, expensive online content that's encrypted out the ass, etc.
With the millions of sales of multiple titles, are some of the bugs that bad? No game is perfect. I think, being on the internet, we hear from the more vocal minority than anything in many cases. And I don't get your beef with encrypted online content. Um, if the content is for your game, what's the big deal that it's encrypted?


If this digital distribution doesn't kill gaming, the motion control crap will though.
While I'm not one to let go of things easily, I'm starting to dig digital distribution. It has the potential to offer games to people at lower prices than retail. Granted, it could all come tumbling down years later but for the majority of people who game, they probably wouldn't care. Remember, we here that hang at DP are a minority. Gaming will continue as it was, just not in disc form. The only thing that would "kill" anything would be individual titles that require regular DLC to make it playable.

So....you have a thing against motion control I take it? If not done right (ie just mindless waggle), I agree-it blows. But if it works (Wii Sports Resort, Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, etc) it can be an awesome experience.


It's utterly insane what Nintendo does to otherwise awesome games. That stupid remote is no way to play Punch-Out when there' no logical reason not to allow the classic controller to work on games like that. The New Super Mario Bros and Mariokart wii have the same issue.
I do have to agree with this-the Wii Mote is just not a good substitute for a game pad. Punch Out and NSMB could have had options but no. Gotta play Nintendo's way. HOWEVER, Mario Kart can be played with the nunchuck, which works really well. The waggle there makes sense. But in that regard, different strokes for different folks.


I own 95 Xbox360 games, 3 Wii games, and 6 or 7 PS3 games.
Just out of curiosity....why did you post this? Showing how few Wii games you own compared to the other systems? Just means you really don't like Wii, which shows you've got some bias against.


PC gaming gets expensive.....
Um, what? Funny thing with the perception of PC gaming-people tend to look at it like their PC is JUST FOR GAMING when they use it for so much more. There's also the myth that you need the latest greatest card practically every other year to keep up. Wrong again. Again, the vocal minority who have the liquid cash to have an expensive rig is niche at best. You can run many games of TODAY with you have a semi decent CPU (not a $300 Wal-Mart special) and maybe an extra $130 for a mid range graphics card. When buying your PC, you just have to think ahead a bit if you want to game. You may already be dropping $500-$600, what's another $100 to future proof a bit?

I bought my current PC two years ago-Gateway (yeah, shoot me) with an Intel Core 2 quad core Q6600 with 3 GB of RAM. I just slapped in a $130 XFX Ati Radeon 5750 card in there and I can run games like Just Cause 2 with high details and at my monitor's native resolution (1440X900) and it runs like melted butter. Sure if you total it up from what I originally paid ($1,000 for the PC plus the card), it may seem expensive but I use the machine for a ton of other things-video editing (has a capture card), desktop publishing, document writing, media access (play music, videos, etc), communication, check book balancing, etc. etc. All the stuff I do with it justifies the price I paid. So really, if you just look at the "gaming" side of it (just the video card), entry into PC gaming is actually pretty cheap.



There's very little reason to buy games when you have to crack them to get around the lame DRM/activation or play without the disc in the drive. Better yet, some of the anti-piracy stuff has even been known to cause security holes in windows in the past or only work on certain OSes; Starfuck and Sony's music rootkit crap come to mind. It's even worse when the game actually bitches about emulation software like Alcohol/Daemon Tools being installed on your system.
You make it sound like ALL games are like that. And people really have THAT big of a beef with having a disc in the drive? Why even play on your consoles? Gotta keep the disc in the drive and the 360 and PS3 have hard drives....

As for the "certain OS's"-what's the deal with that? After a while, OS's like Win 9X or 2000 just don't have the ability to run the new stuff. Why should Microsoft keep supporting their old OS's? That's like saying you should be able to send your Atari 2600 to the current Atari company and expect them to fix it.

I know about the Alcohol/Daemon Tools issue. If I'm not mistaken, those tools were running in memory so I just turned them off. No big deal.


I stopped activating software the first time I had to call Microshaft to get my student copy of Office 2000 unlocked after a reformat.
Office 2000 (at least with SR-1 included on the disc) was the first Office to have activation, if I'm not mistaken, so it wasn't all that great to start with being a first timer.

Just out of curiosity, since you need to activate the software to use it, do you still buy software and crack it?

Personally, I've never had problems with activation. Office 2007, Sony Vegas Movie Studio Platinum, software at work...no issues.


I notice people comparing new game sales to movies in the theater. How many people actually WANT to go to theaters anymore? Why go get raped for 2 tickets and popcorn when I've got a 50 inch TV and surround sound at home!?
Lots, looking at recent ticket sales. Reason: people like to go out. You can change this argument to ask "How many people actually WANT to eat at a restaurant anymore? Why go get raped for 2 dinners when I've got a cook top and an oven at home?!" I don't know about you, but while I've got a lot of fun stuff at home, I still like to go out to a theater to see a brand spanking new movie on the big screen with friends and family.


The only reason to go to theaters now is because Hollywood is still pumping life into a dead industry by withholding the DVD releases! For the price of 2 tickets to an evening showing, you could go buy a new DVD to watch and see the new blockbuster movie later. Once again though, people choose to support these shitty theaters and allow them to remain in business.
Ok....now we're getting into conspiracy theory thoughts. Withholding DVD releases? C'mon. This has been a concept (theater first, home copies later) for like what, 30 years? Longer maybe as you could buy movies (or at least parts) on 8mm/Super 8mm/16 mm for home projector? Again, it's not about just the movie, it's about the experience. Like, why go to a live concert of your favorite rock band when you can buy the CD and crank up the tunes at home?


It's like iTunes. The music on iTunes isn't even CD quality! It's lossy, DRM-infested crap, but people buy it because they either don't know any better or don't care. Offer up some nice, unmolested FLAC/WAV files and I'll happily buy them digitally. Otherwise, I'll buy a used CD for $2 and rip it to my HDD in the format I prefer to listen to.

Um, if I'm not mistaken, iTunes no longer has DRM'd files or at least offers files for a little bit more without DRM. I know Amazon doesn't, where I buy my files as I don't like iTunes the software.

And yes, people don't care-if it sounds good to them, does it matter? Remember, people used to buy cassettes and listen to them happily, even with "tape hiss" and noise. Some would dub CD's to tapes to play in their cars and they were happy. In fact, unless the file was poorly compressed, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Again, the vocal minority (audiophiles, like you apparently) get all up in arms over these services.

So, you buy a used CD at $2, but what about the artist? Don't you want to support them so they continue to make the music you like? Oh wait, that's what concerts are for but hold on! You don't wanna get raped for a concert ticket when you can play that used CD on your surround sound system at home. ;)

[Ed Oscuro]

I just don't like how it's always loaded into RAM even when I'm not using it.
Edit: I misunderstood what you meant. Second try...

You unload it from RAM by stopping the program. There is an easy setting to stop the program from loading at startup - in the Settings menu there is a box checked by default for starting along with the computer. Then, whenever you decide to game on Steam, you just spend a few seconds loading Steam up. I'd rather load Steam when I want it, instead of having it waste my time when I load my computer, as you also seem to prefer.

Options are useful, don't forget to look at them. Lots of programs do this "load with Windows" crap by default, but for many you can stop it.

Other steps you can take are going to mini mode (or whatever it's called now...the first version of the new style recently released didn't have the option that I saw, but another update put it back in I think), and going Offline from the Friends menu to save a very small bit of CPU / internet bandwidth if you aren't using the chat function.

[Therealqtip]

Wait gamestop supports this? lolwut?

[Viper187]

With the millions of sales of multiple titles, are some of the bugs that bad? No game is perfect. I think, being on the internet, we hear from the more vocal minority than anything in many cases. And I don't get your beef with encrypted online content. Um, if the content is for your game, what's the big deal that it's encrypted?


Bugs used to be a lot more rare. Sure, you can crash Mario RPG, but you really have to try. Now there are bugs all the time, and they only patch them half the time. I've seen mention of glitched achievements on 360 too, not that those were a good idea to begin with. Most of them are mind-numbing crap. Plus, there's a serious lack of in-game cheats this generation compared to previous ones. The encrypted content is bad because (1) you can't back it up and just restore it if your drive crashes, and (2) I'm not even sure putting an HDD with encrypted content on a different 360 works. Encryption just complicates things all around and there's no point to it. People are still cracking the downloadable content for use on modded consoles.


While I'm not one to let go of things easily, I'm starting to dig digital distribution. It has the potential to offer games to people at lower prices than retail. Granted, it could all come tumbling down years later but for the majority of people who game, they probably wouldn't care. Remember, we here that hang at DP are a minority. Gaming will continue as it was, just not in disc form. The only thing that would "kill" anything would be individual titles that require regular DLC to make it playable.

Have you heard about what Warner started with movies? The WB Archive. They burn titles to order. Why can't game companies do that instead of us being stuck paying out the ass for some titles that either got under-printed or were ubsurdly popular? Look at PC games. Once they're a few years old, you can rarely find them retail. They could easily burn those to order. Instead, they'll sit there and whine that people are pirating the old games instead of buying the new ones. They rarely seem to keep old games available. That's another issue with DRM and requiring online connections for singleplayer stuff. They can turn off the verification servers anytime and there goes your copy of Assassin's Creed 2 unless you crack it. Kind of like those digital copies of movies they keep including with DVD/BD releases. The activation code is only good for a few months or a year then the disc is worthless because of the DRM. Doesn't stop anyone from sharing copies of the DVD or blu-ray itself online though.


You make it sound like ALL games are like that. And people really have THAT big of a beef with having a disc in the drive? Why even play on your consoles? Gotta keep the disc in the drive and the 360 and PS3 have hard drives....

Yes, we do. I've got terrabytes of HDD space. There's no reason to keep a disc in the drive. I won't do it. Consoles have always been, insert game and play without installing. Now PS3, I would argue with. I actually heard that Sony forces all publishers to use the same disc access functions and the functions are so insane that putting a faster BD-rom in the things would break the games. Why would they want to be stuck with 1X drives in those things forever instead of giving people an incentive to buy a newer "special edition" console with an 8X BD-rom? PC games installed no matter what speed CD/DVD drive you have. You have to wonder what kind of idiot would want to hard code things to the speed of the optical.



As for the "certain OS's"-what's the deal with that? After a while, OS's like Win 9X or 2000 just don't have the ability to run the new stuff. Why should Microsoft keep supporting their old OS's? That's like saying you should be able to send your Atari 2600 to the current Atari company and expect them to fix it.

Just out of curiosity, since you need to activate the software to use it, do you still buy software and crack it?

I mean most Starforce games worked on XP, but not XP 64-bit. Hell, they only worked on IDE CD/DVD drives, so people that adopted SATA early were screwed. Software? No, I've mostly taken to using linux anyway. I do still buy PC games on occasion.


Lots, looking at recent ticket sales. Reason: people like to go out. You can change this argument to ask "How many people actually WANT to eat at a restaurant anymore? Why go get raped for 2 dinners when I've got a cook top and an oven at home?!" I don't know about you, but while I've got a lot of fun stuff at home, I still like to go out to a theater to see a brand spanking new movie on the big screen with friends and family.

Eating at a restaurant is convenient though. It saves anyone cooking, cleaning up, etc. I've got a 50 inch TV here with surround sound. There's nothing convenient about burning gas to go to the theater when I can have a nice viewing experience here without noisy assholes and their cell phones.


Ok....now we're getting into conspiracy theory thoughts. Withholding DVD releases? C'mon. This has been a concept (theater first, home copies later) for like what, 30 years? Longer maybe as you could buy movies (or at least parts) on 8mm/Super 8mm/16 mm for home projector? Again, it's not about just the movie, it's about the experience. Like, why go to a live concert of your favorite rock band when you can buy the CD and crank up the tunes at home?

Conspiracy theory? Just because it's been that way for 30 years doesn't mean it SHOULD be. There was also a recent article about certain studios keeping their titles from netflix/blockbuster until a month or more after release. It's like these old directors that won't give up film grain. I've really never seen the point of concerts though. Bunch of screaming idiots listening to a singers that 9 times out of 10 sound better in the studio anyway. There are very few singers I'd really consider hearing live. I happen to enjoy the studio recordings.



So, you buy a used CD at $2, but what about the artist? Don't you want to support them so they continue to make the music you like? Oh wait, that's what concerts are for but hold on! You don't wanna get raped for a concert ticket when you can play that used CD on your surround sound system at home. ;)

As far as supporting the artists, I'd love to support them if I didn't have to support the RIAA in the process. The record companies make more that the artists anyway. I'm tired of seeing TV shows on DVD with altered music and even new themes becuase the original music was to costly to put on DVD...even when the singer is freakin dead!! For example, the theme to Las Vegas was "A Little Less Conversation" by Elvis, but it wasn't on the DVDs because the company cheaped out on the music rights. So excuse me if I choose to buy albums used and support the record industry as little as possible.

[Ed Oscuro]

Wait gamestop supports this? lolwut?
They want to deal more with shiny new games, less with nasty used ones. That and they likely want to stay on the good graces of the publishers who are moving this direction anyway - the writing is on the wall. You're right, they'd rather keep the used sales, but they must know they haven't any leverage there so they are moving towards areas where they can be relevant.

[kupomogli]

Off topic but I wanted to quote about this right here.


You can change this argument to ask "How many people actually WANT to eat at a restaurant anymore? Why go get raped for 2 dinners when I've got a cook top and an oven at home?!" I don't know about you, but while I've got a lot of fun stuff at home, I still like to go out to a theater to see a brand spanking new movie on the big screen with friends and family.


Eating at a restaurant is convenient though. It saves anyone cooking, cleaning up, etc. I've got a 50 inch TV here with surround sound. There's nothing convenient about burning gas to go to the theater when I can have a nice viewing experience here without noisy assholes and their cell phones.

I can't tell you the last time I ate at home or the last time I brought food to work. Well. I could, but it's a figure of speech. I rarely eat at home because it's not much more to eat out.

When it comes to purchasing food for work. Canned food and frozen meals are priced that it's far more affordable to stop at a fast food restuarant. Though it really depends on how far you work from a fast food restaurant on whether it's affordable or not.

Also. Movie theaters in this day and age aren't worth going to solely because most movies now days suck. If there's a movie that I want to watch I can always wait a year until it hits DVD and rentals are almost nothing in comparison to theater prices.

[Gameguy]

Edit: I misunderstood what you meant. Second try...

You unload it from RAM by stopping the program. There is an easy setting to stop the program from loading at startup - in the Settings menu there is a box checked by default for starting along with the computer. Then, whenever you decide to game on Steam, you just spend a few seconds loading Steam up. I'd rather load Steam when I want it, instead of having it waste my time when I load my computer, as you also seem to prefer.

Options are useful, don't forget to look at them. Lots of programs do this "load with Windows" crap by default, but for many you can stop it.

Other steps you can take are going to mini mode (or whatever it's called now...the first version of the new style recently released didn't have the option that I saw, but another update put it back in I think), and going Offline from the Friends menu to save a very small bit of CPU / internet bandwidth if you aren't using the chat function.
Thanks, I changed the setting. It didn't really slow down the computer at all, but I just don't like a bunch of stuff running when it doesn't need to be. I'm also just playing Portal while offline, I don't see a need to be online while playing it.

[Ed Oscuro]

haha my reply is so obnoxious and dictatorial it's ridiculous

THOU SHALT REMEMBER TO CHECK THE OPTIOSN!1

Anyway, glad to be of help!

[XYXZYZ]

I'm glad I stopped buying EA games a long time ago. FUCK YOU EA!!!!!

You know, it just occurred to me that the only EA game I've ever purchased was The Immortal for the NES.

[geezuzkhrist119]

u think the over flowing shelves of old used sport games at eb/gamestop was bad. just wait till this pass key bullshit starts up. im guessing EAs next move is to not have update Roster DLC which will make the customer by the newest version of the game.

im boycotting EA. So no Bad Company 2 for me.. FUCK EA!!!!!

[ScourDX]

I purchased some EA PC game such as Mirror Edge & Burnout Paradise. It was on clearance for $10. Even if I did purchased the game, I still end up playing the cracked version. I just want to play game without connecting online or register the product. If EA wants to sue my ass, I can show proof I did purchased their game.

[kupomogli]

I just remembered something.

Sega is the first one to do this with a console game(portable.) With Phantasy Star Portable 2, even though it has free infrastructure you're given a unique hunter's license in order to utilize the feature. So what happens if someone sells Phantasy Star Portable 2 and someone else picks it up used? They can't play it online.

I actually hope Phantasy Star Portable 2 keeps the feature when coming to the US. Not to combat used sales, but less piracy if those people want to play the game infrastructure.

http://www.siliconera.com/2009/10/02/phantasy-star-portable-2-regulates-internet-play-with-product-codes/

*edit*

I also think the newest PSP Socom did the same thing also. Again for online.

[Howie6925]

Just seen at blockbuster(i forget what game it was for the ps3 ) but in order to play online you had to pay an extra $4.99 and it was on a rental copy. I was like WTF its getting out of hand.

[Zing]

It's like iTunes. The music on iTunes isn't even CD quality! It's lossy, DRM-infested crap, but people buy it because they either don't know any better or don't care. Offer up some nice, unmolested FLAC/WAV files and I'll happily buy them digitally. Otherwise, I'll buy a used CD for $2 and rip it to my HDD in the format I prefer to listen to.

Itunes is DRM free. It is also offered as 256kbps ABR files, which are going to be transparent to virtually everyone. Have you ABX'd AAC encoded songs at this bitrate compared to WAV?*

I also buy the physical CD, but only so I can rip to lossless, then encode how I see fit. It's also so I can scan the CD cover and keep that archived as well. I have purchased a few lossless releases (NIN in particular) and I have no complaints about them.

I agree that if Itunes decided to release the lossless versions of files, I might consider it. They actually have all the lossless encodes on their internal servers, since they require submissions in that format. It's just a matter of them "flipping the switch" and having the bandwidth to support 50MB per track file transfers.


*I have and I can't hear the difference (I have ~50% accuracy, which are the odds of guessing).