EA to start charging for Online play with used games

[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.

[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.