EA to start charging for Online play with used games

[jcalder8]

IGN Source (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/108/1088621p1.html)


May 10, 2010 - EA Sports is going after the used game market.

Starting with the release of Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11 on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, the publisher will introduce a new Online Pass, a one-time registration code included with each brand new copy of the game. The code allows players to access "online services, features and bonus content."

Those who purchase the game used can buy an Online Pass for $10 or sign up for a free 7-day trial. The pass will be implemented for NCAA Football 11, NHL 11, Madden NFL 11, NBA 11, FIFA 11, and EA Sports MMA as well. The pass offers different features for each title, however, players will not have access to basic multiplayer features if purchased used.

"You will be unable to play multiplayer online game modes or use your downloaded content in online game modes," EA says. Online leagues, dynasty and franchise modes are also only available with the Online Pass. The break down for each title can be seen on the publisher's official website.

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

Despite being the leader in used game sales, retailer GameStop, which acknowledged it plans to focus on digital content in the future, supports Electronic Arts' new direction.

"GameStop is excited to partner with such a forward-thinking publisher as Electronic Arts," said Dan DeMatteo, Chief Executive Officer of GameStop Corp. "This relationship allows us to capitalize on our investments to market and sell downloadable content online, as well as through our network of stores worldwide."I've defended EA in the past but to me this is just inexcusable. I almost always buy used because I don't have the money to buy every game that I want brand new but now there is no incentive to buy the game at all. For me it'll make just as much sense to wait until the game is no longer on their servers since I'll never pay the extra $10 just to play online.

[Nirvana]

My god, I can't stand EA. This is just so damn lame. I mean, it's not too big of a deal, but why do this in the first place...

EA needs to end their NFL contract. I miss the 2k series.

[chrisbid]

im under the impression that only a percentage of gamers play games online. some diligent searching in the used bins may find more than one copy of an ea sports game with an intact online code still in the box.

itll be interesting to see how this develops


and while in general i am not cool with publishers double charging for a game (the practice should be called reverse piracy), charging for a service outside of the contents of the disk isnt that big of a deal to me. in fact, im surprised ea hasnt started charging for online across the board.

[g00ber]

I guess I wont be buying any more EA games..

That is so rediculous on so many levels.

And of course Gamestop is going to back them - they get all the 'exclusive' content that makes them the big $$$$. No big surprise there.

[Clownzilla]

If EA can deliver a top-notch, sports-centric online service that blankets ALL of their franchise sports games then I would have nothing wrong with even a yearly fee. If they offered weekly tournaments for prizes, constant roster updates, user made content trading abilities (for golf courses, skate parks, etc.), fantasy football access, etc. that brought together a community of sports gamers then they would have a winner on their hands. Unfortunately, this will be the same standard service with an extra fee attached FOR EACH GAME!

[XYXZYZ]

I guess I wont be buying any more EA games..

That is so rediculous on so many levels.

And of course Gamestop is going to back them - they get all the 'exclusive' content that makes them the big $$$$. No big surprise there.

I figure they'd need some kind of deal or they'd be against it; the way I understand it game shops make far more money on used games than on new ones, and I don't imagine they'd be too friendly to EA interfering with their moneymaker.

[pepharytheworm]

I guess I wont be buying any more EA games..

That is so rediculous on so many levels.

And of course Gamestop is going to back them - they get all the 'exclusive' content that makes them the big $$$$. No big surprise there.

I don't know about that. Used games are Gamestop's bread and butter, every associate is told to always offer the used copy instead if available. They only carry the extra content so you pre-order the game which is a guaranteed sale. They always hope you forget to cancel you reservation so they can keep the money same with gift cards.

I understand EA doing this but I still don't like it. Good thing I don't play sports games or online.

[Red Warrior]

I just recently purchased a complete copy of Tiger Woods 07 for $5 and a complete copy of Tiger 08 for $8 on ebay. I'm a late adopter when it comes to EA games cuz you can get them so cheap after the "sequels" are released each year.

Now, every used EA game from here on out will never be cheaper than $10 if you wanna play it online. Oh well, it's not like I play online that often anyway. Now I definitely won't with that $10 price tag hanging off of it. I already pay for Xbox Live Gold. I'm not paying yet another fee for a feature that I barely use.

With every passing year, the video game industry alienates me more and more.

[chrisbid]

but how well does gamestop do with used sports games? they breed like roaches in used game bins, and i cant see GS making much profit with them unless they grossly underpay for them.

[Oobgarm]

They do well with them over the course of the first couple months of availability, then not so well afterward, especially after season's over. The buyback price drops significantly after those first couple months in preparation for the flood that comes in later.

I personally could care less, online gaming does nothing for me anymore. If it means I can pick up a cheaper copy of a sports title since it lacks online connectivity, that's fine by me.

Most of the people who are gonna play online are new buyers, particularly day one adopters. Besides, I'd be willing to wager that over 50% of those who buy the game don't even touch the online portion.

*shrug*

[kupomogli]

I don't play online for any of EA's games. Dante's Inferno is a good game and I wasn't interested at all in playing Trials of St. Lucia because it's just going through the wave after wave of enemies with a friend. Once it was released and EA was charging 9.99 for it, I definitely wasn't interested.

Mirror's Edge has the highest time trial scores posted online, but there's no actual online play. Mirror's Edge is an awesome game, but even if the online portion was taken away, I could still do the time trials myself. The ridiculously hard time trials.

I've actually never played a sports game online. Ever. I also own no sports games for this gen. I don't see anything wrong with making people pay for an online code if they purchase the game used however. Whenever playing a game online you're using a portion of the companies server. If in a couple months 50% of the people occupying the server are people who purchased the game used, then EA is catering to them while not making anything themselves. Not that having an online server even costs much anyways, but they still do provide it.

[Clownzilla]

With every passing year, the video game industry alienates me more and more.

The gaming industry started alienated me when they had the ability to keep their hands in my pocket after the sale. Constant charges for everything from DLC to online connectivity charges ON TOP of the basic online connection charges (ie. EA online on top of Xbox Live Gold) is going to become the norm. It's not like the content is getting any better than it was either........just more expensive. It's going to get to a point when we don't own our games but just "lease" our games just like people lease vehicles. You want to play game "X" past next year? Too bad, our severs won't let you play game "X" anymore so you will just have to buy game "Y" (aka. game "X" with a new name). The sad part of this is that there are an increasing number of people that never knew a world where you can buy a game and have the COMPLETE GAME on day one and own the fully functioning game FOREVER!

[Clownzilla]

I don't play online for any of EA's games. Dante's Inferno is a good game and I wasn't interested at all in playing Trials of St. Lucia because it's just going through the wave after wave of enemies with a friend. Once it was released and EA was charging 9.99 for it, I definitely wasn't interested.

Mirror's Edge has the highest time trial scores posted online, but there's no actual online play. Mirror's Edge is an awesome game, but even if the online portion was taken away, I could still do the time trials myself. The ridiculously hard time trials.

I've actually never played a sports game online. Ever. I also own no sports games for this gen. I don't see anything wrong with making people pay for an online code if they purchase the game used however. Whenever playing a game online you're using a portion of the companies server. If in a couple months 50% of the people occupying the server are people who purchased the game used, then EA is catering to them while not making anything themselves. Not that having an online server even costs much anyways, but they still do provide it.

I think many of these complainers understand the costs associated with running servers (although there are quite a few people that think online gaming should be a free social service provided by the corporation). What is ticking many people off (including myself) is the fact that gaming companies keep increasing the price of these games through these extra charges while the quality hasn't increased to justify the price increases. EA has every right to do what they are doing but moves like are slowly killing the reputation of a once loved industry and creating new enemies out of old fans.

[unwinddesign]

This actually sucks even if you buy the game brand new. My friends bought NHL 10, Madden 10, NBA Live 10 and FIFA 10. I played an ass ton of NBA Live on my XBL account.

Now, if I want to do that next year, I'll have to pay $10. Really, really lame that you can't share a game with your friends and everything is tied to one tag. A lot of times my friends will make XBL accounts for one month or something like that. If you register the game to one of those, and then it expires and you make a new account later on, you can't play.

Or if you want to bring it over to a friend's place who doesn't own the game? Nope, can't play online... unless you bring your account too.

In trying to combat used game sales, EA has essentially dropped the value for those who actually buy the game new to begin with. I think a lot of their market (16 - 24 males) share games with either a roommate, brother or friend fairly often. This is going to be annoying as hell.

Then again, the Stimulus package on COD sold 2.5 million copies in its first week, so I don't think consumers mind getting fucked over that much. I just won't want to hear the bitching in seven, eight years when all the DRM/online play/activiation codes are so ridiculously draconian that it makes it a pain in the ass to actually play the game (hello, PC games!)

[duffmanth]

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

[TonyTheTiger]

And of course Gamestop is going to back them - they get all the 'exclusive' content that makes them the big $$$$. No big surprise there.

As people have said above, considering that GameStop's primary source of income is used games and since this is a measure to make used game sales less attractive when compared to new copies, I think the GameStop statement is PR nonsense. Rarely will a company come out and say "X is being a douchebag." But I'd bet money that GameStop is fuming at EA right now ever since Mass Effect 2 undercut their typical $5 discount for used copies of brand new titles.

Without saying whether EA is in the right or not, I will say that this is a clever way to encourage people to buy new $60 copies instead of used $55 copies from GameStop. The best case scenario is it pushes down used game prices so everything balances out. So now that used copy costs $45 instead of $55, effectively bringing everything back to the status quo.

[kupomogli]

Nevermind with what I last said. I didn't even think of people living in the same home who may happen to use the same console but different accounts or friends bringing the game over to someone elses house, etc.

Yeah. This is actually a stupid idea. With PS3 users it's not really so difficult. My bestfriend has my PSN account added, I have his PSN account added so whatever I play over there if I really care about it being tied to my account I'll just play on that. I know XBL accounts can transfer over to someone elses 360 to play using the name but there is supposed limitations to this.

[phreakindee]

As much "good" has come from the internet, I think online is going to kill gaming. At least for old-school losers like me.

Eventually, it's going to be completely online. Seriously, every last bit of it. If there's even a local storage of the game at all it will be very, very minimal, with microtransactions and fees out the arse. That's pretty much unavoidable and this goes to show that.

Well, at least from the big publishers. Things like the Humble Indie Bundle give me hope!

[le geek]

I am okay with this.

[Shadow Kisuragi]

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

Ignorant much?

There are a lot of things to be said to clarify the issue, but I'm going to keep quiet on the matter. Suffice to say, the deal only affects the user if the person buys the game second-hand and wants to utilize the online features. Publishers/developers don't get any money off second-hand sales, so they'd essentially be PAYING people to utilize the online features if they purchased the game used. If you were in charge of the company, would you want to be PAYING people to use your features, or would you like to at least break even?

[chrisbid]

As much "good" has come from the internet, I think online is going to kill gaming. At least for old-school losers like me.

Eventually, it's going to be completely online. Seriously, every last bit of it. If there's even a local storage of the game at all it will be very, very minimal, with microtransactions and fees out the arse. That's pretty much unavoidable and this goes to show that.

Well, at least from the big publishers. Things like the Humble Indie Bundle give me hope!


i dont know, broadband penetration is stalling and it is nowhere near 100%. its going to be years if not decades before broadband becomes ubiquitous.

[Astrocade]

The gaming industry started alienated me when they had the ability to keep their hands in my pocket after the sale. Constant charges for everything from DLC to online connectivity charges ON TOP of the basic online connection charges (ie. EA online on top of Xbox Live Gold) is going to become the norm. It's not like the content is getting any better than it was either........just more expensive. It's going to get to a point when we don't own our games but just "lease" our games just like people lease vehicles. You want to play game "X" past next year? Too bad, our severs won't let you play game "X" anymore so you will just have to buy game "Y" (aka. game "X" with a new name). The sad part of this is that there are an increasing number of people that never knew a world where you can buy a game and have the COMPLETE GAME on day one and own the fully functioning game FOREVER!


This.

That's a pretty good example of why modern gaming in general and online gaming in particular hold so little value to me. It's all just a money pit.

I propose that someone does to EA what EA did to Sega twenty years ago. Remember when EA reverse-engineered the Genesis and started releasing unlicensed games for it? Someone should crack a keygen for all of these new "coded" games that allows you to play the game that you LEGALLY purchased USED for as long as you wish.

Suck on that, Trip.

[phreakindee]

i dont know, broadband penetration is stalling and it is nowhere near 100%. its going to be years if not decades before broadband becomes ubiquitous.

Oh I know, and that bothers me. In the US at least, publishers don't seem to give a crap - they're just blindly pushing this online-only stuff. Look at Assassin's Creed II and the new C&C on PC. And now this with console games. I just find it easy to foresee an online-only future within 10 years, even if broadband doesn't catch up in time. As long as they keep making profits somewhere with it, I don't know how much it matters if the infrastructure exists realistically or not. If online works better for their bottom line and kills used/physical games, why should they care if it's 100%?

[duffmanth]

Ignorant much?

There are a lot of things to be said to clarify the issue, but I'm going to keep quiet on the matter. Suffice to say, the deal only affects the user if the person buys the game second-hand and wants to utilize the online features. Publishers/developers don't get any money off second-hand sales, so they'd essentially be PAYING people to utilize the online features if they purchased the game used. If you were in charge of the company, would you want to be PAYING people to use your features, or would you like to at least break even?

I'm sorry, but this is just further nickel and diming gamers. I stand by my statement.

[diskoboy]

My question is this:

Will EA finally stop cutting off servers to their games? And how will EA differentiate the difference between "new" and "used"?


This has problems written all over it.

[Shadow Kisuragi]

I'm sorry, but this is just further nickel and diming gamers. I stand by my statement.

"Nickel and diming" is done at the consumer's behest. If the consumer wants DLC, the consumer will purchase DLC. If the consumer purchased the game used, the consumer can decide on whether to support the people who developed the game instead of a company looking to make a quick buck off people. No one forces the user to purchase or use that content.


My question is this:

Will EA finally stop cutting off servers to their games? And how will EA differentiate the difference between "new" and "used"?

EA owns the servers still, so they reserve the right to remove access to the servers according to their EULA. EA would be able to differentiate the difference between "new" and "used" by usage of the code ("new" = code redemption, "used" = download from Marketplace).

[TonyTheTiger]

I think the bigger problem would have to do with people copying down the registration codes from shelf copies. Now all of a sudden that shelf copy that is technically new albeit not shrinkwrapped is genuinely gimped when it turns out the code doesn't work.

[Cryomancer]

So are they gonna not do online play only achievments then?

[phreakindee]

I think the bigger problem would have to do with people copying down the registration codes from shelf copies. Now all of a sudden that shelf copy that is technically new albeit not shrinkwrapped is genuinely gimped when it turns out the code doesn't work.

Yeah, I remember that used to happen with PC games - people would come into my store and take the registration code for online-capable games like UT2004 and such, making the copy on the shelf basically worthless since you activated that code to play it online.

[BetaWolf47]

You know, the way gaming is heading, I might just stop buying next-gen systems. If there's no way to get a complete game past a certain point, then there's no reason on splurging.

[Shadow Kisuragi]

Sorry, but if your shelf copy has anything inside of it, I would already chalk that up as lost.

Also, Beta, I've already started doing so once I started up the collecting habit again. I rarely buy anything new and I find myself no longer splurging on digital content, mainly because I can't come back to it once the service goes down and the hardware fails. It's also hard to justify spending $60 on something I won't play every day when it'll just drop in price to $20 in less than 6 months :)

[BetaWolf47]

Gamestop's whoring out used games is what's causing all of this, like PSP Go and EA charging for online play through a used title.

[Porksta]

Gamestop's whoring out used games is what's causing all of this, like PSP Go and EA charging for online play through a used title.

Exactly. People are jumping on EA for this stupid decision, but when it all comes down to it, Gamestop started it.

[TonyTheTiger]

Sorry, but if your shelf copy has anything inside of it, I would already chalk that up as lost.

But GameStop and most consumers don't, especially when the cost is the same as a shrinkwrapped copy. GameStop won't be able to use the "it's technically new" argument when it's possible that the registration codes won't work. They might have to change the policy or at least come up with a system to protect the numbers included in shelf copies. And I'm not just talking about protecting them against customers. The employees themselves are in a really good position to swipe the codes.

[JustRob]

Ignorant much?

There are a lot of things to be said to clarify the issue, but I'm going to keep quiet on the matter. Suffice to say, the deal only affects the user if the person buys the game second-hand and wants to utilize the online features. Publishers/developers don't get any money off second-hand sales, so they'd essentially be PAYING people to utilize the online features if they purchased the game used. If you were in charge of the company, would you want to be PAYING people to use your features, or would you like to at least break even?

This makes me think of another question. Are they basing sales on physical copies or implied license to the game? This isn't taking into account rips and pirate copies which don't count in this argument since they are not original media.

Day 1, some dude buys a game, takes it home, plays the shit out of it, but gets bored a few months later and trades it into a store, gives it to a friend, sells it, whatever, he no longer has possession of the game disc.

Day 91, second-hand owner pops the disc in and tries to play. The original owner no longer has the ability to play the game since he doesn't have the disc. How does the company really lose money on the person playing that same disc second-hand when they were already paid the first time, and weren't going to get a penny out of the second owner anyway. They apportioned their infrastructure to support the game being played on their servers based on sales numbers. No piracy has occured here, no theft from the company. How is this hurting them?

...ok, that may be a little hard to follow, but I hope the point can be seen.

[Clownzilla]

You know, the way gaming is heading, I might just stop buying next-gen systems. If there's no way to get a complete game past a certain point, then there's no reason on splurging.

I have been contemplating this for several months now. Next gen tech is nice and will continue to show advancement but at what price? Will gaming be as rewarding when it get's boiled down to a monthly payment and a direct feed from an off-site server? I have to admit, services like Xbox Live are cool but I'm REALLY starting to miss that pocket full of tokens or that special smell of a freshly opened NES game.

[TonyTheTiger]

This makes me think of another question. Are they basing sales on physical copies or implied license to the game? This isn't taking into account rips and pirate copies which don't count in this argument since they are not original media.

Day 1, some dude buys a game, takes it home, plays the shit out of it, but gets bored a few months later and trades it into a store, gives it to a friend, sells it, whatever, he no longer has possession of the game disc.

Day 91, second-hand owner pops the disc in and tries to play. The original owner no longer has the ability to play the game since he doesn't have the disc. How does the company really lose money on the person playing that same disc second-hand when they were already paid the first time, and weren't going to get a penny out of the second owner anyway. They apportioned their infrastructure to support the game being played on their servers based on sales numbers. No piracy has occured here, no theft from the company. How is this hurting them?

...ok, that may be a little hard to follow, but I hope the point can be seen.


I figure it's physical copies. I don't think it has as much to do with publishers hating the mere concept of used games as much as they tend to have a problem with GameStop selling used copies of the game from day 2 for a mere $5 discount. People walking into a GameStop looking for a copy of a game released that week are planning to spend $50-$60 and would have likely bought a new copy had the clerk not pushed a $45-$55 used copy that just came in. This system is designed to promote the sale of new copies during that relevant period by rendering GameStop's token discount meaningless.

In that sense, it really does hurt them since instead of GameStop selling 100 new copies like they ordinarily would, they're selling 80 new copies and 20 of those copies a second time once they're traded back in. I don't know how much of an effect it has overall but it's apparently enough of an annoyance to start a fight over.

[DefaultGen]

.....

[Bojay1997]

Ignorant much?

There are a lot of things to be said to clarify the issue, but I'm going to keep quiet on the matter. Suffice to say, the deal only affects the user if the person buys the game second-hand and wants to utilize the online features. Publishers/developers don't get any money off second-hand sales, so they'd essentially be PAYING people to utilize the online features if they purchased the game used. If you were in charge of the company, would you want to be PAYING people to use your features, or would you like to at least break even?

As much as I hate to agree with this, I think you make a very compelling argument. I don't think those of us who buy new will benefit in any way from this, however, as I doubt EA or anyone else is going to go back to the $50 price point on new games for PS3 or Xbox 360. The truth is, Gamestop forced EA to make this move by refusing to explore the same kind of profit sharing model that home video rental companies entered into with the studios in the early days of the VHS rental market. While I don't agree with the many attempts to make used game sales or rentals illegal, I do agree that it is extremely unfair for the publishers and developers to receive no benefit at all on a game that may be sold and resold literally dozens of times. If anyone believes EA is the only company that will be pursuing this model, you are sadly mistaken.

[Rickstilwell1]

It wouldn't stop me from buying used. I don't even play online. If I'm gonna play multiplayer, I'm gonna do it on the same console with my cousin or best friend and a second controller. Call me old school.

[The 1 2 P]

I haven't played sports games regularly since the NES days so this doesn't really affect me. However, I am a huge Burnout fan and since EA owns Criterion I wonder how long before they start to carry this model over to their non-sports games.

[norkusa]

EA has already started doing something like this with their games. I just got Skate 3 today and inside there was an activation code for the "Skate Share Pack" which basically just gives you access to user created skate parks and the Skate 3 news updates.

Of course all these features were available in Skate 2 without having to use any kind of activation code. :-/

[duffmanth]

"Nickel and diming" is done at the consumer's behest. If the consumer wants DLC, the consumer will purchase DLC. If the consumer purchased the game used, the consumer can decide on whether to support the people who developed the game instead of a company looking to make a quick buck off people. No one forces the user to purchase or use that content.



EA owns the servers still, so they reserve the right to remove access to the servers according to their EULA. EA would be able to differentiate the difference between "new" and "used" by usage of the code ("new" = code redemption, "used" = download from Marketplace).

Well I have to respectfully disagree. First gamers get charged $60 for a new game, then if they choose the collector's edition of a game, it's usaully an extra $20-40 for some questionable extra content, then it's $5, $10, $15 or more for DLC, and now just because someone wants to save money by purchasing a used versus new copy of a game, they have to pay extra if they wanna play online?! Where does it stop? I know people have choices as to what they want to spend their money on, but this is just pure greed on EA's and Gamestop's part.

[Gameguy]

There are a lot of things to be said to clarify the issue, but I'm going to keep quiet on the matter. Suffice to say, the deal only affects the user if the person buys the game second-hand and wants to utilize the online features. Publishers/developers don't get any money off second-hand sales, so they'd essentially be PAYING people to utilize the online features if they purchased the game used. If you were in charge of the company, would you want to be PAYING people to use your features, or would you like to at least break even?
A large percentage of people who rush out to buy games at full price do so knowing that they can sell the copies used to get back a good portion of the purchase price(within a few months of release), since used copies will no longer be as functional they'll most likely lose a good portion of their value much sooner. When people will stop wanting to buy used copies and these customers find that their recent games are worthless, they might be discouraged from purchasing new games at full price. Where do all these game stores get used copies to resell? People trade them in for credit, and if they won't be getting a decent amount for them they'll stop buying them at full price. Either way the companies will lose money, either they sell fewer copies for more money or they'll sell more copies for less money.

Also, how much would they really be losing by keeping online play available to those who purchased used copies? Plenty of businesses that deal with online services go with the "Freemium" business model and it works for them.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-03/ff_free?currentPage=all


But for digital products, this ratio of free to paid is reversed. A typical online site follows the 1 Percent Rule — 1 percent of users support all the rest. In the freemium model, that means for every user who pays for the premium version of the site, 99 others get the basic free version. The reason this works is that the cost of serving the 99 percent is close enough to zero to call it nothing.




"Nickel and diming" is done at the consumer's behest. If the consumer wants DLC, the consumer will purchase DLC. If the consumer purchased the game used, the consumer can decide on whether to support the people who developed the game instead of a company looking to make a quick buck off people. No one forces the user to purchase or use that content.
True, but consumers can still complain about it. Before people could buy a used game and it would work just as well as a new copy, now they'll be forced to buy a new copy to use the same features. Of course they can still choose to avoid buying a copy at all, but it would still be annoying to them that they'd have to choose. It pretty much will force people to adopt new systems and purchase new games right away, if a person wants to get a system several years after release and a game that came out several years ago, finding a new copy of that game can be difficult.



I don't really see why they would need to worry about used sales. Books are available used. Even though there are several books that have been in print for over 100 years and are easily available used, they're still in print today which means there's still enough people wanting new copies. Just make a game really good and enough copies will sell. Imagine if used cars were banned to increase auto sales, how many people could still afford to own one? Would more people buy new cars or would less people own cars?

[Rickstilwell1]

I think the only reason some people are freaked out because new games these days have so many extra features that old games never had, such as online play itself, the ability to add things to the game that aren't normally in it etc.

To me DLC add-ons are nothing more than synonymous to game hacks people make of the older games these days. The only difference is that they are official instead of fan-made. The companies wanted to jump on the hacking and get paid extra for it.

[Flack]

Between hardware failures and crap like this, it's like the entire industry is daring me to never buy a current generation console or game again.

[k8track]

Between hardware failures and crap like this, it's like the entire industry is daring me to never buy a current generation console or game again.
Way ahead of you, buddy. The sixth generation was my final, ultimate stopping point. I didn't and don't have the slightest desire to continue beyond that.

[maxlords]

I love the games this generation but honestly, this online shit is starting to piss me off. I'm tired of having to activate things and go to websites to set em up and do updates out of the box on games. It's just dumb. I want to open it up, pop it in and start playing. I don't play online. I don't play co-op. Why are these game companies punishing ME, the consumer who's faithfully bought their products? On the other hand, I'm now able to eBay the activation codes I don't have any use for.... :D

[MadTitan]

I don't understand all of the hatred being sent EA's direction. Video games now cost as much to make as major motion pictures. The only avenue video game developers and publishers have to make that money back is by selling their games. Every time a used game is sold for 5 dollars less it takes money away from them. You can't tell me people paying 55 for a used game wouldn't be buying new if there was no option for a used game.

You can say that used sales hurt the movie industry just as bad but I don't believe that is true. A movie has a chance to make it's money back in theaters long before anyone is selling used dvds. Video games only have the one chance to make money for the companies and that is with new game sales. Yes, with DLC there is now more of an opportunity to make money back but making 5 dollars here and there doesn't offset however many 60 dollar purchases were lost due to games being bought used for 55.

[Cryomancer]

Video games now cost as much to make as major motion pictures.

The point is, they don't HAVE to. They could make games cheaper. They could make movies a lot cheaper, too. But they spend a lot of money on stupid shit (graphics, online modes for games that don't need them/excessive actor wages, drugs) and ignore what makes the product actually desirable (gameplay, few bugs/a decent story, acting, etc). What percentage of the budget on these things is just for the hype machine? If the industry wanted to go back to less over-the-top expensive products, they could. But instead of actually changing their methods, they choose to place the blame on other companies, and make the consumer pay for it. Everything is going down this road of make the customer pay as much as possible for as little control as possible. It's lame. It will continue to happen as long as customers let it happen.

But really, games cost too much to make? Make some cheaper games!

[Bojay1997]

The point is, they don't HAVE to. They could make games cheaper. They could make movies a lot cheaper, too. But they spend a lot of money on stupid shit (graphics, online modes for games that don't need them/excessive actor wages, drugs) and ignore what makes the product actually desirable (gameplay, few bugs/a decent story, acting, etc). What percentage of the budget on these things is just for the hype machine? If the industry wanted to go back to less over-the-top expensive products, they could. But instead of actually changing their methods, they choose to place the blame on other companies, and make the consumer pay for it. Everything is going down this road of make the customer pay as much as possible for as little control as possible. It's lame. It will continue to happen as long as customers let it happen.

But really, games cost too much to make? Make some cheaper games!

There are plenty of inexpensive and even free games out there. If you don't like big budget games, just don't buy them. I can't understand why people are always complaining about how expensive new games are when it's not a necessity to buy them and there are literally more games than one person could ever play in a lifetime available for free or cheap starting with the earliest classic systems straight through to indie games on the PC.

[Bojay1997]

A large percentage of people who rush out to buy games at full price do so knowing that they can sell the copies used to get back a good portion of the purchase price(within a few months of release), since used copies will no longer be as functional they'll most likely lose a good portion of their value much sooner. When people will stop wanting to buy used copies and these customers find that their recent games are worthless, they might be discouraged from purchasing new games at full price. Where do all these game stores get used copies to resell? People trade them in for credit, and if they won't be getting a decent amount for them they'll stop buying them at full price. Either way the companies will lose money, either they sell fewer copies for more money or they'll sell more copies for less money.

Also, how much would they really be losing by keeping online play available to those who purchased used copies? Plenty of businesses that deal with online services go with the "Freemium" business model and it works for them.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-03/ff_free?currentPage=all






True, but consumers can still complain about it. Before people could buy a used game and it would work just as well as a new copy, now they'll be forced to buy a new copy to use the same features. Of course they can still choose to avoid buying a copy at all, but it would still be annoying to them that they'd have to choose. It pretty much will force people to adopt new systems and purchase new games right away, if a person wants to get a system several years after release and a game that came out several years ago, finding a new copy of that game can be difficult.



I don't really see why they would need to worry about used sales. Books are available used. Even though there are several books that have been in print for over 100 years and are easily available used, they're still in print today which means there's still enough people wanting new copies. Just make a game really good and enough copies will sell. Imagine if used cars were banned to increase auto sales, how many people could still afford to own one? Would more people buy new cars or would less people own cars?

Your argument falls apart when you consider that "catalog" book publishing (i.e. the classics) only accounts for a very small percentage of total book sales. For some publishers, it's less than 10% of revenue. Publishers make their money on best sellers just like Hollywood makes money on blockbuster movies and video game companies make 100% of their money on new game sales and DLC. Books wear out and people actually enjoy going to a theater for a different experience than they can get at home. Video game companies don't really have the same advantages. A used copy of a game is for all intents and purposes identical to a new one to most gamers.

[Leo_A]

Glad I don't care for most EA titles.

[Gameguy]

There are plenty of inexpensive and even free games out there. If you don't like big budget games, just don't buy them. I can't understand why people are always complaining about how expensive new games are when it's not a necessity to buy them and there are literally more games than one person could ever play in a lifetime available for free or cheap starting with the earliest classic systems straight through to indie games on the PC.
I agree, I've found plenty of freeware games that are worth playing and plenty are way better than titles available at stores. I'm also pretty sure most of the people who feel new games are too expensive avoid buying them. Excluding portable systems, the most current system I have is either the PS1 or N64 and I got those used, I pretty much just stick to the older systems. There are several current games that interest me, but I'm not going to buy a new system just to play a handful of games on each of them.


Your argument falls apart when you consider that "catalog" book publishing (i.e. the classics) only accounts for a very small percentage of total book sales. For some publishers, it's less than 10% of revenue. Publishers make their money on best sellers just like Hollywood makes money on blockbuster movies and video game companies make 100% of their money on new game sales and DLC. Books wear out and people actually enjoy going to a theater for a different experience than they can get at home. Video game companies don't really have the same advantages. A used copy of a game is for all intents and purposes identical to a new one to most gamers.
It's because most people already have the classics in their collections, they've been in print long enough for most people to have already owned them at one point. They are still popular enough to be in print though, and I'm sure if new books are written well enough they'll also stay in print long enough to become classics. They're not best sellers anymore but they still bring in money. You really shouldn't compare the percentage of sales of the publishers when what counts is what each author gets. Count how much money an author(or their estate) got since their book first got published, if it stayed in print for over 100 years that would still be more money than what a best seller would get if only in print for 6 months. Think of each game developer as an author, not a publisher. The better the game the longer it will stay in print and the more money the developer will get.

If the games are good enough they'll still sell. Seeing a movie once in theaters is about $10-$15, while getting a new game to play once is around $50-$60. If people like the movie they'll buy the DVD so they can watch it over and over again. Sure you can play the game more than once since you've bought it, but you'll only want to if it's good enough. If it's bad, there's a good chance you won't even finish it once. If more people felt that the games were good enough to keep playing, they'll be willing to buy a new copy rather than a used one. Plenty of people buy a used copy, play the game until they get bored, and trade it in again. Who cares about condition if you're planning to sell it once you're done? That same used copy can sell over and over again if it keeps getting traded in, to prevent that from happening make the game actually good so it won't get traded in. The more it sucks the more people don't want to keep it so it becomes available to buy used.

[kupomogli]

If more people felt that the games were good enough to keep playing, they'll be willing to buy a new copy rather than a used one. Plenty of people buy a used copy, play the game until they get bored, and trade it in again. Who cares about condition if you're planning to sell it once you're done? That same used copy can sell over and over again if it keeps getting traded in, to prevent that from happening make the game actually good so it won't get traded in. The more it sucks the more people don't want to keep it so it becomes available to buy used.


Whether a game is good or not isn't a basis on why people purchase used. Most people aren't collectors of games, etc. The benefits Gamestop offers for buying a game at used price far outweigh the new price of a game if the average gamer.

Gamestop is $5 less but gives you the option of an additional 10% off with the Edge card and they use this as another selling point. The Edge card gives you an additional 10% off plus a year subscription of Game Informer magazine for $12 a year(is it still $12? I remember back before the merger it was $10.) A $60 game that's used will be $55, then $5.50 off with the Edge card, so the gamer is really paying $49.50 which is 200% mark up from trade in and 100% profit for Gamestop.

Another thing employees at Gamestop are told to do is to let the customer know their seven day return policy. It doesn't matter if you like the game, hate the game, it doesn't work, whatever. If you purchase Final Fantasy 13 and play it for six days straight and then return it or happen to play it an hour but absolutely hate it, you will be given store credit since it's within that seven days. That keeps the person having to buy something at their store(new or used though,) and then they will always say that you can purchase another game and again return it.

With this seven day return policy, Gamestop knows that some gamers may want to finish it, forget about returning it or even like it enough to keep it. The fact that they have insane mark up on used games, they're making a ton of money off the games to not care if someone repeatedly comes in, beats a game, then switches it out with another.

[Oobgarm]

If the games are good enough they'll still sell. Seeing a movie once in theaters is about $10-$15, while getting a new game to play once is around $50-$60. If people like the movie they'll buy the DVD so they can watch it over and over again. Sure you can play the game more than once since you've bought it, but you'll only want to if it's good enough. If it's bad, there's a good chance you won't even finish it once. If more people felt that the games were good enough to keep playing, they'll be willing to buy a new copy rather than a used one. Plenty of people buy a used copy, play the game until they get bored, and trade it in again. Who cares about condition if you're planning to sell it once you're done? That same used copy can sell over and over again if it keeps getting traded in, to prevent that from happening make the game actually good so it won't get traded in. The more it sucks the more people don't want to keep it so it becomes available to buy used.

But you don't take into consideration the number of people(I'm sure it's a big figure) who just buy to play and then trade in for the next big thing, regardless of how "good" the game actually is. What about those who dumped Modern Warfare 2 for Battlefield 2? Or those who will buy NCAA 11 and then turn around and dump it for Madden 11? One could easily compile a list of titles this would work for.

Really, all this should mean is that GameStop/used shops will have to charge $10 less for the used copy, putting the price with a new online code back at what it was.

I dunno if GS would do that though, but they'd have to consider that an extra $10 a person would have to spend on a game after-the-fact would make that $50-55 used game seem much less appealing, regardless of an Edge card bonus...they'd just be better off buying new, and then GameStop would lose that margin in used software.

But, that would also mean less in trade-in value, thereby making some people more reluctant to getting rid of the game.

I think that a tiered pricing system would work for used software-a certain used price for no online, and a certain price for a game with a new code at point-of-sale. It might keep everyone happy(to a certain extent).

[Gameguy]

Whether a game is good or not isn't a basis on why people purchase used. Most people aren't collectors of games, etc. The benefits Gamestop offers for buying a game at used price far outweigh the new price of a game if the average gamer.
The point I was getting at was that if a game is really good, there won't be as many used copies available to buy as more people would be willing to keep them. It's not like there won't be any used copies, but there won't be tons available so people would just get new copies if they couldn't find used ones.


Gamestop is $5 less but gives you the option of an additional 10% off with the Edge card and they use this as another selling point. The Edge card gives you an additional 10% off plus a year subscription of Game Informer magazine for $12 a year(is it still $12? I remember back before the merger it was $10.) A $60 game that's used will be $55, then $5.50 off with the Edge card, so the gamer is really paying $49.50 which is 200% mark up from trade in and 100% profit for Gamestop.

Another thing employees at Gamestop are told to do is to let the customer know their seven day return policy. It doesn't matter if you like the game, hate the game, it doesn't work, whatever. If you purchase Final Fantasy 13 and play it for six days straight and then return it or happen to play it an hour but absolutely hate it, you will be given store credit since it's within that seven days. That keeps the person having to buy something at their store(new or used though,) and then they will always say that you can purchase another game and again return it.

With this seven day return policy, Gamestop knows that some gamers may want to finish it, forget about returning it or even like it enough to keep it. The fact that they have insane mark up on used games, they're making a ton of money off the games to not care if someone repeatedly comes in, beats a game, then switches it out with another.
I remember when the Edge card first got started, it came with a subscription of GMR magazine and I believe it cost $24.99. The membership was for 10 months and I didn't even save enough to break even, I never bothered with that again. I remember it was for 10 months because the card expired in less than a year and I didn't get all of the issues in the mail though I was told it would be for 12 months. I should point out that where I am the stores are called EB Games, but they're owned by Gamestop and have accessories branded as Gamestop.

I remember when the return policy was 14 days, and you could only return something if something was wrong with it. I haven't kept up to date with all of their return policies.


But you don't take into consideration the number of people(I'm sure it's a big figure) who just buy to play and then trade in for the next big thing, regardless of how "good" the game actually is. What about those who dumped Modern Warfare 2 for Battlefield 2? Or those who will buy NCAA 11 and then turn around and dump it for Madden 11? One could easily compile a list of titles this would work for.
Very true, a lot of people do this. While used copies will still be available, the number will be reduced. Instead of a game being resold 5-6 times before someone keeps it for good, it may be resold 2-3 times before being kept. If a game is good, it's more likely that more people will buy and keep it.

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.

[chrisbid]

I don't understand all of the hatred being sent EA's direction. Video games now cost as much to make as major motion pictures. The only avenue video game developers and publishers have to make that money back is by selling their games. Every time a used game is sold for 5 dollars less it takes money away from them. You can't tell me people paying 55 for a used game wouldn't be buying new if there was no option for a used game.

You can say that used sales hurt the movie industry just as bad but I don't believe that is true. A movie has a chance to make it's money back in theaters long before anyone is selling used dvds. Video games only have the one chance to make money for the companies and that is with new game sales. Yes, with DLC there is now more of an opportunity to make money back but making 5 dollars here and there doesn't offset however many 60 dollar purchases were lost due to games being bought used for 55.


the industry certainly dont have a problem paying you to astroturf on message boards defending their practices do they?

[MadTitan]

the industry certainly dont have a problem paying you to astroturf on message boards defending their practices do they?

I'm only stating my opinion. I don't care one way or the other about EA sports games, I don't play them. All that i'm saying is that I understand why such practices are being put in place and I don't have a problem with them. I know i'm in the minority but I buy every game that I want the first week it comes out new for full price. I want the money i'm spending to support the people making and producing the games that I enjoy.

[BetaWolf47]

Way ahead of you, buddy. The sixth generation was my final, ultimate stopping point. I didn't and don't have the slightest desire to continue beyond that.
The current generation is probably going to be my final. I'm behind on even my Gamecube stuff, I think. Unless games like LostWinds and Mega Man 9 & 10 get a disc release in the future though, I might be compelled to keep downloading stuff.

[chrisbid]

I'm only stating my opinion. I don't care one way or the other about EA sports games, I don't play them. All that i'm saying is that I understand why such practices are being put in place and I don't have a problem with them. I know i'm in the minority but I buy every game that I want the first week it comes out new for full price. I want the money i'm spending to support the people making and producing the games that I enjoy.


a copyright is not a profitright. once you sell a product, you do not get to dictate how the product is used or resold.

now charging a fee for a separate service like online play is different, and i do not have a problem with this particular tactic. but going after used game sales is absolutley ridiculous

[pepharytheworm]

Whether a game is good or not isn't a basis on why people purchase used. Most people aren't collectors of games, etc. The benefits Gamestop offers for buying a game at used price far outweigh the new price of a game if the average gamer.

Gamestop is $5 less but gives you the option of an additional 10% off with the Edge card and they use this as another selling point. The Edge card gives you an additional 10% off plus a year subscription of Game Informer magazine for $12 a year(is it still $12? I remember back before the merger it was $10.) A $60 game that's used will be $55, then $5.50 off with the Edge card, so the gamer is really paying $49.50 which is 200% mark up from trade in and 100% profit for Gamestop.

Another thing employees at Gamestop are told to do is to let the customer know their seven day return policy. It doesn't matter if you like the game, hate the game, it doesn't work, whatever. If you purchase Final Fantasy 13 and play it for six days straight and then return it or happen to play it an hour but absolutely hate it, you will be given store credit since it's within that seven days. That keeps the person having to buy something at their store(new or used though,) and then they will always say that you can purchase another game and again return it.

With this seven day return policy, Gamestop knows that some gamers may want to finish it, forget about returning it or even like it enough to keep it. The fact that they have insane mark up on used games, they're making a ton of money off the games to not care if someone repeatedly comes in, beats a game, then switches it out with another.

I use to be a Store Manager at gamestop, so I have to correct a couple of statements or clarify.
Its $15 for the edge card which give you 10% off used games and an extra 10% on trade ins. It includes a 10 month subscribtion to game informer (the associate always states it takes about 2 months for your subscribtion to kick in. 2 - 12 = 10)

Here's the quoted return policy'

"Used (pre-owned) merchandise and opened new accessories may be returned for a refund within 7 days of purchase or exchanged for the identical item within 30 days of purchase."

So you have 7 days to get a full refund, you have 30 days to reiceve credit. With a reicept of course. If you want credit just return the game after 7 days to a gamestop that doesn't have a copy. Just check online to be sure.

[Griking]

I don't see this to be as big of a deal as everyone is seeming to make out of it. PC software has included product activation for years now which has prevented reselling. I'm just surprised that it took this long.

I do have one question about this however, aren't people already paying for the right to play online when they pay for a Xbox Live subscription? Isn't this kind of double dipping or are EA online games hosted on EA's servers rather than Microsoft's?

[Zing]

So prices on year old used EA sports games will drop from $5 to $1.

[kupomogli]

I do have one question about this however, aren't people already paying for the right to play online when they pay for a Xbox Live subscription? Isn't this kind of double dipping or are EA online games hosted on EA's servers rather than Microsoft's?

Microsoft hosts servers for EA which they can shut down whenever they want. Due to this I'm sure EA has to pay Microsoft an additional amount.

[The 1 2 P]

The question I'm wondering is rather Gamestop will start to instruct their employees to point this out when customers purchase used EA sports titles. If they don't then the customer can of course return the game within 7 days for a full return. But I still feel Gamestop should be obligated to keep the customer(especially casual gamers and gift buyers) informed of this.

[kupomogli]

Didn't see this earlier.


So you have 7 days to get a full refund, you have 30 days to reiceve credit. With a reicept of course. If you want credit just return the game after 7 days to a gamestop that doesn't have a copy. Just check online to be sure.

The policy may have changed because both the Gamestops I'm around state that you can return a used game within seven days and are not required to trade it in for the same game. One of them I have a friend working for who tries to get me to buy used(obviously doing his job,) which the other are people I don't know.

[Howie6925]

I dont play EA sports games but I think this is total BS,but how long before every company follows EA. I fear for the future of gaming if this happens if it continues with all the digital download and activation codes I think(imo) that the next gen maybe the last.

[Griking]

I dont play EA sports games but I think this is total BS,but how long before every company follows EA. I fear for the future of gaming if this happens if it continues with all the digital download and activation codes I think(imo) that the next gen maybe the last.

Don't fear for the future of gaming, just fear for the future of the second hand gaming market. If you buy a new copy of a game then none of this changes a thing.

[Hep038]

I think a lot of people here love the fact EA is doing this so they can complain. Truth is anyone buying the games used know they will have to fork out another $10 to play online. That fact alone will keep the games on the shelf longer thus lowering the price. For all of the people saying they do not play games online you benefit the most. The only people who really suffer is people who buy the used game with in the first 3 months. Like many have said it is not a big deal.

[JimmyDean]

WTF EA? God, I knew they were cheap, but this? This has gone too far.

[exit]

While I do think it's a little foolish, you really can't blame them for this, even tho it's really just an excuse for them to get more money. Not that it bothers me any, I usually buy the games I want new and by the time I get the games that I waited for a price drop on, it's online community is usually nonexistent. Only way EA will stop this is if nobody falls for it, which of course we know isn't going to happen.

[TonyTheTiger]

Good lord. I'm not necessarily happy about it but a lot of the responses would make you think a board of directors meeting at EA goes something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSxCT1Faw6k

[kupomogli]

That's right folks. EA will take your first born children and slaughter them.

[Flack]

So let me throw this at you guys. Up until now, I have always assumed that the right to play a game online was a game-related feature. In other words, if I buy (picking random game here) Madden 2010 and pay $60, I have always seen that as I am buying a $60 game, and that game allows me to play it online. What Electronic Arts is essentially saying here is, that is no longer the case -- instead, when I pay $60, I am paying $50 for the game, and $10 for the ability (a "Gamer Pass") to play it online. For the sake of argument, I am willing to go along with that for the moment.

So now, I would like the ability to sell my Gamer Pass for Madden 2010.

My game got scratched, or I gave it away, or I lost it. Doesn't matter -- I can't play it anymore. Now I have this "thing" I was charged for -- a "Gamer Pass" -- and I have no use for it. I want to sell it. Electronic Arts has charged me $10 for the ability to play this game online. I can no longer play the game online, and wish to sell that right to someone else.

Of course that will never happen, and in my mind it really exposes the logic loophole here. If you give a game to a friend and they play it online, you are not both playing it online at the same time. EA is not out any more money or resources, because the same amount of people are playing it online.

Think about it this way -- and I know I am opening a can or worms for even mentioning Sony, but ... deal with it. When company XYZ builds a Blu-Ray movie player, they pay Sony $30 for royalties. For every single one. When you buy a $300 Toshiba Blu-Ray player, $30 of that goes directly to Sony. But if my friend gives me his old Blu-Ray player because I bought a new one, I do not have to go pay $30 to Sony!! The right to watch Blu-Ray movies stays with the player, not the person! (Christ, I had better shut up before someone hears me and they start charging me for this, too.) And even when you buy movies, that ability to go online and view additional content stays with the movie, not the person who bought it.

I new this current generation of consoles would come with a zillion new features, but I never dreaming that continually kicking me in the balls would be one of them.