EA to start charging for Online play with used games

[TonyTheTiger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bojay1997]

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

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

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

[Zthun]

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

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

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

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

[Icarus Moonsight]

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

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

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

[TonyTheTiger]

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

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

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

[Oobgarm]

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

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

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

[TonyTheTiger]

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

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

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

[chrisbid]

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

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

worst analogy ever

[chrisbid]

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

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

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

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

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

[PapaStu]

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

[Bojay1997]

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

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

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

[The 1 2 P]

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

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

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

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

[gepeto]

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

[Griking]

/shrug

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

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

[heybtbm]

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

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

(relax)

[Leo_A]

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

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

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

[heybtbm]

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

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

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

You need to let it go.

[Icarus Moonsight]

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

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

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

[ScourDX]

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

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

[The 1 2 P]

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

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