EA to start charging for Online play with used games

[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.