EA Sports to charge used game buyers $10 to unlock basic online multiplayer

[HaRuMaN]

http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/11/ea-sports-to-charge-used-game-buyers-10-to-unlock-basic-online/

Pretty lame, if you ask me.
 

[Ginsu Victim]

This has been talked about for a few months, but it appears as though it's finally happening. It's quite lame. Good thing I don't like their sports games. (Still playing the 2K games on Dreamcast!)

[Dartful Dodger]

It sounds like a trick or scheme. they'll probably get (if they haven't already pounded out the details)  with those big used game franchises and game rental companies to pay a fee so they can give new codes with their old games.  Everybody, except for the smaller mom and pop used game stores, will be okay.

[pointdablame]

It sounds like a trick or scheme. they'll probably get (if they haven't already pounded out the details)  with those big used game franchises and game rental companies to pay a fee so they can give new codes with their old games.  Everybody, except for the smaller mom and pop used game stores, will be okay.

I have to totally disagree on that one.

Why would EA make a deal with the Gamestop's of the world as you say when this plan is meant to directly stop people from buying Used games at the big chains?  No one at EA cares about mom and pop shops... they care about all the lost revenue from Used game sales at Gamestop

And why would Gamestop make the business decision to buy these new codes from EA when used game sales account for something like 85% of their profit?  Do that with EA and every publisher will do that and will severly deflate their profit.  All this will do is drop the used price of EA games by $10 more than their current used values IMO.  There will be no deals with big chains

[opt2not]

(Still playing the 2K games on Dreamcast!)

Bless you sir. Bless you.

[Malenko]

I'll just continue to not buy EA Sports Games.

[MidnightMenace!]

besides the fact that EA makes crappy games and sports games suck in general


why would anyone buy a game used that gets rereleased every year anyway? doesnt the online multiplayer dry up pretty quick on its own evey 10-12 months?

[northerngames]

that's my problem with EA games too the 2010 is the same as the 2000 games just change some names add a play or two that differers and there you have it ten years in the making and thats the best they can come up with and now they think there worth more for online play lol good luck to you EA.

this is suppose to happen with many other gaming company's too but I think there all going to go downhill soon as they stop the used game sale's becuase people just won't buy them anymore.

 I have bought many games over the years but never paid $60.00 for a new 360 game becuase the same game is usually $20.00 or less 2 weeks later.

if they all change and do that then I would just be a classic gamer and play old school games and have no interest in newer console's to me there just games and no matter what the title is there not worth $60.00+ dollars its just a game and usually they only last a couple day's and not worth even half of what they want for it new.

[massive88]

Eh, sales of used games are worse for their bottom line than piracy, and I imagine EA is a little sick of people holding out a few months to get last year's game for next to nothing.

Hardly.

Madden 2010 came out in August of 2009, which was what, 9 months ago?

Today Gamestop sells it pre-owned for $45, thats only $15 off the new price.

The EA sports games in particular are a gold-mine for stores like Gamestop, which Im sure is what has driven this sort of concept.

[Samstag]

Madden 2010 came out in August of 2009, which was what, 9 months ago?

Today Gamestop sells it pre-owned for $45, thats only $15 off the new price.

I usually buy Madden every year, but I buy the previous year's version.  I can't remember the last time I paid more than $10.  I'll be picking up Madden 2010 for $8-10 sometime in the next couple of months.

I doubt you'll ever see deals like that at Gamestop, though.  Game publishers would have a much bigger problem with used game sales if the Gamestop shoppers realized there were much better deals out there.

[Hoopz]

Madden 2010 came out in August of 2009, which was what, 9 months ago?

Today Gamestop sells it pre-owned for $45, thats only $15 off the new price.

I usually buy Madden every year, but I buy the previous year's version.  I can't remember the last time I paid more than $10.  I'll be picking up Madden 2010 for $8-10 sometime in the next couple of months.

I doubt you'll ever see deals like that at Gamestop, though.  Game publishers would have a much bigger problem with used game sales if the Gamestop shoppers realized there were much better deals out there.

I don't buy a lot of console games.  Where's the best price to pick up used games now? 

[massive88]

I usually buy Madden every year, but I buy the previous year's version.  I can't remember the last time I paid more than $10.  I'll be picking up Madden 2010 for $8-10 sometime in the next couple of months.

I doubt you'll ever see deals like that at Gamestop, though.  Game publishers would have a much bigger problem with used game sales if the Gamestop shoppers realized there were much better deals out there.

Im sure the price drops quote a bit when the new version comes out as well.  Madden 2009 is $8 used at Gamestop.  Im sure 2010 will drop sharply in August with 2011 comes out.

And yeah, Gamestop isnt the cheapest place to get used games, but their market proliferation and profits are assuredly what EA lusts after with this move.

[Samstag]

I don't buy a lot of console games.  Where's the best price to pick up used games now? 

Gamefly is the best place to get dirt-cheap used games , but only when they have a sale.  Newegg and GoGamer have cheap new games on a regular basis.  Amazon has some really great deals on new games once in a while and their marketplace is worth at least checking if you have a particular used game in mind.  You can even trade your old games in at Amazon and they pay for the shipping.

Slickdeals.net and cheapassgamer.com are great places to find the latest deals.

[Hoopz]

I don't buy a lot of console games.  Where's the best price to pick up used games now? 

Gamefly is the best place to get dirt-cheap used games , but only when they have a sale.  Newegg and GoGamer have cheap new games on a regular basis.  Amazon has some really great deals on new games once in a while and their marketplace is worth at least checking if you have a particular used game in mind.  You can even trade your old games in at Amazon and they pay for the shipping.

Slickdeals.net and cheapassgamer.com are great places to find the latest deals.

Thanks.  I'm buying a DSI XL today for my daughter so I'm in the market for a few used games for that. 

[Samstag]

Thanks.  I'm buying a DSI XL today for my daughter so I'm in the market for a few used games for that. 

DS games are a little harder to find good deals on.  The ones that don't hold their value usually aren't very good.

[Hoopz]

No, you're in the market for an Acekard. 

Tomorrow's agenda at work is figuring out what I can do with the DS to make things easier.... 

Thanks.  I'm buying a DSI XL today for my daughter so I'm in the market for a few used games for that. 

DS games are a little harder to find good deals on.  The ones that don't hold their value usually aren't very good.

I've got like 20ish DS games I need to get rid of... a few A-listers in there.

I've offered them in bulk to a couple of people but they always want to cherry pick.  I see my cousins so infrequently they had already moved on to ipod touch games by the time I could scrounge them all up.

Who wants to pay $100 + shipping for a mystery box?   

My daughter's turning 8 so I'm a little limited to what she'll play.  Me, on the other hand....   

[SavannahLion]

Doesn't Steam put the used PC game market into a total headlock? Don't see a whole lot of backlash against that.

I don't agree with this in any manner, but if EA can successfully convince a large enough dumb ---fudgesicle--- fan base to continue buying their games, $10 fee or not, what do they care what the rest of us think?

[versapak]

Not that I wholly condone this, but it isn't near as bad as some make it out to be. It only effects those that buy the games used, and if you buy the game used, then the developer/publisher isn't getting any money from that sale to you.

It isn't all that unreasonable for them to try different things like this to make money from those sales.

I think $10 is too high a price, but say it were $5, then I would see absolutely nothing wrong with this (as long as it remains a charge solely to the rental and used markets).

I also would support such a move more if there were a week or two free trial play as well. That way rental customers have a chance to fully try a game out, which very well could lead to a sale of the game new, and wouldn't be penalized too much.

[Ginsu Victim]

I also would support such a move more if there were a week or two free trial play as well. That way rental customers have a chance to fully try a game out, which very well could lead to a sale of the game new, and wouldn't be penalized too much.

It says in the article you get a 7-day trial.

[versapak]

I also would support such a move more if there were a week or two free trial play as well. That way rental customers have a chance to fully try a game out, which very well could lead to a sale of the game new, and wouldn't be penalized too much.

It says in the article you get a 7-day trial.

Ahhh...

Well then, other than it being $10 instead of what I consider a far more reasonable $5, I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.

If you like waiting a year to buy your sports games, then you probably aren't one to really play them online anyway, and this really doesn't effect you.

I do think that publishers need to start mentioning new purchase benefits on the game cases though, and making it clear that buying it used will have extra charges for certain things. You can't really expect the used game stores to track what a developer/publisher is going to include/exclude otherwise, and if there is no clear mention of it then the end user is quite easily getting screwed.

A game that came out relatively recent is often only discounted about $5 for used, and if it is going to additionally cost that much or more for some of the features, then it truly isn't worth it. If it is made clear to the consumer though, then the stores like Gamestop will likely have to start reflecting those additional costs in their used prices.

[Ginsu Victim]

Plus, if the game was owned by someone who never takes it online in the first place, there won't be a $10 charge anyway.

[massive88]

Plus, if the game was owned by someone who never takes it online in the first place, there won't be a $10 charge anyway.

Only if it still has its code with it, which is doubtful.

Mass Effect 2 was the first EA game that I saw something like this, where they you register an online account, separate from your XBL account, and enter in a code printed on an insert that was separate from the manual, which I assume all of these would be.  Makes more sense to mass produce the manual, then have unique codes on a single insert.  If I loan ME2 to my friend, they wont have the Cerebus network access unless they buy a separate DLC item for $10 in MS points.

Anyway, point being, even if someone didnt use the online code, they would still have to keep it with the game.  Gamestop probably wouldnt care when buying the used game, cause they dont want to take the time to verify if its been used or not, so theres no incentive there for the original buyer to hold onto it, unless hes going to resale it himself.

[versapak]

Plus, if the game was owned by someone who never takes it online in the first place, there won't be a $10 charge anyway.

Only if it still has its code with it, which is doubtful.

Mass Effect 2 was the first EA game that I saw something like this, where they you register an online account, separate from your XBL account, and enter in a code printed on an insert that was separate from the manual, which I assume all of these would be.  Makes more sense to mass produce the manual, then have unique codes on a single insert.  If I loan ME2 to my friend, they wont have the Cerebus network access unless they buy a separate DLC item for $10 in MS points.

Anyway, point being, even if someone didnt use the online code, they would still have to keep it with the game.  Gamestop probably wouldnt care when buying the used game, cause they dont want to take the time to verify if its been used or not, so theres no incentive there for the original buyer to hold onto it, unless hes going to resale it himself.

If it is on a slip included in the case, but the user never uses it, why would it not then still be in the case?

No, there is no guarantee, but still... If a user didn't bother to use it, then it isn't all that likely that they decided to throw it away.

Do you instantly just pull everything out of the case of your games and leave only the manuals?

Heck, I don't even bother taking the manual out 90% of the time, much less anything that is in there with it.

[northerngames]

Plus, if the game was owned by someone who never takes it online in the first place, there won't be a $10 charge anyway.

Only if it still has its code with it, which is doubtful.

Mass Effect 2 was the first EA game that I saw something like this, where they you register an online account, separate from your XBL account, and enter in a code printed on an insert that was separate from the manual, which I assume all of these would be.  Makes more sense to mass produce the manual, then have unique codes on a single insert.  If I loan ME2 to my friend, they wont have the Cerebus network access unless they buy a separate DLC item for $10 in MS points.

Anyway, point being, even if someone didnt use the online code, they would still have to keep it with the game.  Gamestop probably wouldnt care when buying the used game, cause they dont want to take the time to verify if its been used or not, so theres no incentive there for the original buyer to hold onto it, unless hes going to resale it himself.

If it is on a slip included in the case, but the user never uses it, why would it not then still be in the case?

No, there is no guarantee, but still... If a user didn't bother to use it, then it isn't all that likely that they decided to throw it away.

Do you instantly just pull everything out of the case of your games and leave only the manuals?

Heck, I don't even bother taking the manual out 90% of the time, much less anything that is in there with it.

people sell code's on gametz.com all day long.

even if it is only a couple bucks to them it must add up when they have a handfull.

[Ginsu Victim]

I remember back when Phantasy Star Online came out for Dreamcast going to a rental store and grabbing the code sticker out of the placeholder case. Since you didn't get the case when you rent the game, I was able to use my burned copy online because no one had used the code yet.

Still have that sticker in my case to this day.

[massive88]

Plus, if the game was owned by someone who never takes it online in the first place, there won't be a $10 charge anyway.

Only if it still has its code with it, which is doubtful.

Mass Effect 2 was the first EA game that I saw something like this, where they you register an online account, separate from your XBL account, and enter in a code printed on an insert that was separate from the manual, which I assume all of these would be.  Makes more sense to mass produce the manual, then have unique codes on a single insert.  If I loan ME2 to my friend, they wont have the Cerebus network access unless they buy a separate DLC item for $10 in MS points.

Anyway, point being, even if someone didnt use the online code, they would still have to keep it with the game.  Gamestop probably wouldnt care when buying the used game, cause they dont want to take the time to verify if its been used or not, so theres no incentive there for the original buyer to hold onto it, unless hes going to resale it himself.

If it is on a slip included in the case, but the user never uses it, why would it not then still be in the case?

No, there is no guarantee, but still... If a user didn't bother to use it, then it isn't all that likely that they decided to throw it away.

Do you instantly just pull everything out of the case of your games and leave only the manuals?

Heck, I don't even bother taking the manual out 90% of the time, much less anything that is in there with it.

Its all theoretical sure, but if I open a game, and 3 things fall out, I will throw them away, which happens quite frequently as they put flyers or promos in game cases.

If its tucked in nice and tight with the manual, sure, it might still be there, the cases are designed to hold manuals though, not loose sheets.


--

Thats awesome Ginsu.

[versapak]

Its all theoretical sure, but if I open a game, and 3 things fall out, I will throw them away, which happens quite frequently as they put flyers or promos in game cases.

If its tucked in nice and tight with the manual, sure, it might still be there, the cases are designed to hold manuals though, not loose sheets.


--

Thats awesome Ginsu.

Yeah, I have never had the "loose" sheets fall out when I opened the case. It isn't like they are in there without a manual.

The only point initially though was that there are instances where you could be lucky enough to not have to pay the extra fee even when buying used.

It certainly wouldn't be the norm though, and anyone would be silly to not assume that the code wasn't used.

[Epyx]

I worked for EAC up here in Vancouver (Triple Play, FIFA, NHL etc) and the games were as bad then as now...to this day I still can't play EA sports games without feeling nauseous...suffice it to say my non-disclosure ran out years ago...the games were released riddled with bugs and the engines were barely modified from year to year.

[Ginsu Victim]

the games were released riddled with bugs and the engines were barely modified from year to year.

Got anything better than this? For being out from under a non-disclosure, you sure as heck didn't tell us anything we don't already know

[SavannahLion]

the games were released riddled with bugs and the engines were barely modified from year to year.

Got anything better than this? For being out from under a non-disclosure, you sure as heck didn't tell us anything we don't already know

That says a lot. He's basically saying EA Genesis crap has the same code as it does on the EA Xbox crap.

[Necroticart]

What i'm interested in is Backbreaker it uses actual physics instead of mocap for play, and the crazy part about this game is It has modding tools that resemble what Modnation racers has. So while it's not an officially NFL game it's something new unlike madden plus online play is included on the used copies

Edit:included the link to the mod video
http://www.youtube.com/v/N4M4hpM-SSY&hl=en_US&fs=1&#

[shateredsoul]

*cough*boycott*cough*

[Loafmeister]

I don't see that big a deal, online comes with a cost to the dev so aside from the $10 versus $5, I don't see a problem with it (agree with you versapak).

The only problem I have is someone buying Madden 2010 a couple of years down the road, paying the $10 rate and then EA announces they're dropping the server access in a couple of months.  That would suck real bad. If EA wants to charge for the used copy to connect online, fine, but then they need to keep servers running a lot longer than 2-3 years.

[Necroticart]

Honestly as far as servers go people should be hosting their own just look at old PC games for example. If I install quake I can still play online and it's almost 14 years old. For no reason should EA be hosting the servers. Basically they make it so you have to upgrade every few years for the online functionality and considering the lack of innovation on their part it's no surprise got to cheat customers somehow to make a little extra green.

[Loafmeister]

Here's a couple of other reasons aside from greed for the devs to host the servers:

- Helps curb piracy
- Helps prevent some of the cheating that comes into play (though it's no guarantee)
- Many games, even sports games, have RPG elements build into them via stat tracking.  It's much easier to handle that, considering the focus on team play, via their own servers.

For me, the limitation on cheaters is one of the reason I started to play online again.  I'll agree though, for many of the games out there, it's a pity they don't support local servers as well.  I agree them making money is certainly a factor too .

[Dartful Dodger]

EA's losind revenue from Gamestop? I traded in a couple of PS2 Karaoke Revolutions and a Resident Evil to put towards the pre-order of a new Battlefield  Bad Company 2 from GameStop.

The person buying the used 1995 NHL isn't going to be buying the 2010 limited edition version and EA isn't making any 1995, (or 2009) versions anyway so they aren't losing any revenue from it.

It's like buying a car.  People buying used cars aren't in the market for new cars, but people in the market for new cars are thinking about the resale value of that car.

The person buying the NHL 2011 won't be getting as much cash for it when they trade it in.

Unless Gamestop (with EA's support) has an incentive for them to trade in the old one for a new one, people are going to sit on the games for another year or so.

On a more personal note, Battlefield will be/was the last EA game I buy new.

[TOK]

Honestly as far as servers go people should be hosting their own just look at old PC games for example. If I install quake I can still play online and it's almost 14 years old. For no reason should EA be hosting the servers. Basically they make it so you have to upgrade every few years for the online functionality and considering the lack of innovation on their part it's no surprise got to cheat customers somehow to make a little extra green.

This is the whole Dedicated Server argument that caused the uproar about Modern Warfare 2.
Many new games aren't coming with the option, and having to depend on the developers server/matchmaking creates exactly the problem you describe. There is an entire generation of multiplayer games that will lose their online ability if developers shut the matchmaking servers down.

This EA thing is another layer to that. They aren't making any money on the sale of used games this is their plan to get it, either by getting the 10 bucks or more likely by discouraging people who want to play online from buying used stuff at all.

EDIT: Pre-Coffee grammar. 

[Samstag]

Gamefly is having one of their used game sales I spoke about.  I'm not sure if non-members have to pay shipping.  It may vary by title.

The really good deals go in and out of stock, so if you want something grab it quick.

[Hoopz]

Gamefly is having one of their used game sales I spoke about.  I'm not sure if non-members have to pay shipping.  It may vary by title.

The really good deals go in and out of stock, so if you want something grab it quick.

Thanks for the heads up!

[shateredsoul]

Ubisoft is joining the party

http://kotaku.com/5541773/assassins-creed-publisher-could-copy-eas-downloadable-content-model

*edit* woops, it turns out they are adding the Downloadable contect part, not the limited internet scheme, bu they are considering it

[Hoopz]

THQ is jumping on this cash cow:

http://www.geek.com/articles/games/thq-introduces-5-charge-for-playing-used-games-online-20100520/

[Slippyblade]

I work in a used game store, NOT GAMESTOP.  This is going to cause no end of trouble.

I've got no problem with DLC.  I actually like it, it extends playability on games.  I do have an issue with the notion of cutting out chunks of the ORIGINAL game and then serving them up as seperate DLC you won't get if you buy used.  I actually expect games to be released that have an entire level or boss fight that has been dyked out of the main game not included unless you have the "bought new" code or pay an extra fee for it.

Not to mention the difficulty of explaining this whole consumer-rape of a process to some grandma shopping for her kids.

This is ridiculous...  Buy a new Chevy and it comes with a free redemption code for a steering wheel, sorry the same model of car from the used lot must pay an extra $150 to chevy for a special "used car" steering wheel.  Sorry - not how it works.

Slippy

[Dizzle]

Wanna cut down on used games sales?

Here's a thought.  Make games that people want to keep.   

Announcing a next years version of the game 6 months after you dropped the current version probably doesn't help either.

[Slippyblade]

The problem only gets worse.  The [url href=http://kotaku.com/5544314/preowned-customers-paying-extra-gamestop-doesnt-care]response from Gamestop[/url] shows a surprising lack of understanding of what is happening as well.  The GS response seems think that the EA thing is about charging for post release DLC, when in fact it's basically reverse Shareware.  Crippleware if you will.  Then again, I used to work at Gamestop as a manager and I'm not surprised at a catastrophic lack of comprehension.

The response says, "We support the creation of added downloadable content for popular franchises, as we see that as extending the life of titles and broadening the base of game players." That's not what is happening here.  Basic gameplay functionality is crippled unless you either buy new or shell out extra money.  Imagine buying a used book and having to pay the publisher an extra surcharge in order to read the last chapter...

"Thank you Mario!  But our princess is in another castle!  To access World 8-1 type in the code that came with this game new, or pay Nintendo an extra $10"

I call BS.

Slippy

[Loafmeister]

I find the car analogy doesn't work though.  With a car, the manufacturer's only source of expense is for parts when there's a break, so they get their cut. With a game, the used game uses their servers, so there's a cost they spend out, on a product that has been sold to someone new and they aren't getting a cut.  IE: I don't have as much a problem when the used game charge is for online connection (though $5 should be sufficient), but have a bigger issue if this charge would prevent me from playing a single player game, via content needed to finish the game.

In reality, the original owner is no longer playing so it's not like they have massive bandwidth increase (they do, the original owner still has stats saved on their servers, but this should be minimal) but my point is, it's not as simple as how everyone is assuming it is.

[Slippyblade]

It *is* that simple.  The online functionality is just a beginning.  As some of the publisher interviews have already shown, they are already talking about removing major plot points or levels and implementing them in this fashion.  My second example with Mario is much more accurate.

Slippy

[versapak]

It *is* that simple.  The online functionality is just a beginning.  As some of the publisher interviews have already shown, they are already talking about removing major plot points or levels and implementing them in this fashion.  My second example with Mario is much more accurate.

Slippy

Give one example.

[shateredsoul]

he's right, his Mario example works...

It's like having chronotrigger and having to pay extra for the other endings, it's like having punch out and having to pay to play against Mike Tyson, It's like etc etc..

It *is* that simple.  The online functionality is just a beginning.  As some of the publisher interviews have already shown, they are already talking about removing major plot points or levels and implementing them in this fashion.  My second example with Mario is much more accurate.

Slippy

Give one example.

[versapak]

he's right, his Mario example works...

It's like having chronotrigger and having to pay extra for the other endings, it's like having punch out and having to pay to play against Mike Tyson, It's like etc etc..

Ummm... No.

BOLDED WORDS


Give one example of any dev talking about removing major plot points or levels and implementing them in this fashion.

Anyone under the sun can speculate till they are blue in the face, but there is no indication of the above kind of activity that I have seen anywhere.

Someone saying that they have seen examples of it, yet giving no link to or a credible (and verifiable) quote of negates the very statement.

[Slippyblade]

he's right, his Mario example works...

It's like having chronotrigger and having to pay extra for the other endings, it's like having punch out and having to pay to play against Mike Tyson, It's like etc etc..

Ummm... No.

BOLDED WORDS

Give one example of any dev talking about removing major plot points or levels and implementing them in this fashion.

Anyone under the sun can speculate till they are blue in the face, but there is no indication of the above kind of activity that I have seen anywhere.

Someone saying that they have seen examples of it, yet giving no link to or a credible (and verifiable) quote of negates the very statement.

Well, just a quick look around at the articles that are popping up I've got:

From http://kotaku.com/5541773/assassins-creed-publisher-could-copy-eas-downloadable-content-model

Future Ubisoft titles, however, could be getting their downloadable content as soon as day one, following the Project 10 Dollar model EA has utilized in games like Dragon Age: Origins and Battlefield: Bad Company 2. The model entitles new users to free downloadable content via a code included inside the box, while gamers who pick up the game used can purchase a pass to access the extra content for a price, normally around $15.

Day one DLC sounds a whole bunch like, "parts we removed from the game and mad as DLC instead"

From http://www.geek.com/articles/games/thq-introduces-5-charge-for-playing-used-games-online-20100520/

    The main enhancement of UFC Undisputed 2010’s premium online content is the new “Fight Camp Mode” in which players can assemble ranks of up to 40 people and train together. This is a significant value-add to the game as players can continually improve their skills by training with their friends and bringing teams of MMA specialists together.

    This multiplayer content for UFC Undisputed 2010 will be available via a one-time code included with the game at purchase. Codes for accessing the content will be available for second-time buyers for an additional $5.

Read more: http://www.geek.com/articles/games/thq-introduces-5-charge-for-playing-used-games-online-20100520/#ixzz0p5YCBRht

I work in a game store and we've been pushing UFC like mad since the 2009 version was and still is a huge seller.  The FIRST this was mentioned was just after EA announced their thing.  This was a last minute, knee-jerk response to EA.  They, at the last minute, decide to lock off a portion of the game via one time code.

And on top of this, Xbox already has a pay-to-play model that I'm sure the devs get a portion of.  Sony is implementing a "premium" PSN service soon as well.  So you get to pay for the game, pay for the service, then pay for your token.  Pathetic.

Slippy

[versapak]

Absolutely none of that is proof of developers talking about removing key plot points or levels.

Yeah, there already is downloadable stuff planned for immediate download to new game purchasers at launch, or in some cases keys to unlock content already included on the disc, but again...

That is NOT key stuff being removed from the game for used game buyers to buy extra.

[shateredsoul]

It's stuff they would have included as part of the game before that now they are charging for (i.e. online play), I consider online play a key part of the game, which is precisely why they are taking it out... to dissuade consumers from buying used. 

Absolutely none of that is proof of developers talking about removing key plot points or levels.

Yeah, there already is downloadable stuff planned for immediate download to new game purchasers at launch, or in some cases keys to unlock content already included on the disc, but again...

That is NOT key stuff being removed from the game for used game buyers to buy extra.

[Slippyblade]

How so?  For a competitive game like UFC, online play IS A KEY POINT.  They decided, literally just before release, to lock it out via single use code.  To be honest, I don't think it's the developers anywhere near so much as the publishers.  And day one DLC?  Unless they've got a separate team working on it, it's going to be stuff cut out of the main game.  They used Dragon Age: Origins as an example of this which was a mistake due to the developers already having talked about it.  The Day One DLC was indeed a fully fleshed part of the game that was not included due to time constraints; however they managed to finish it just before release.  I'd say that is the exception, not the rule.

Developer:  Game is done and ready for gold!
Publisher: What parts can we lock out to cripple the aftermarket?

[versapak]

How so?  For a competitive game like UFC, online play IS A KEY POINT.  They decided, literally just before release, to lock it out via single use code.  To be honest, I don't think it's the developers anywhere near so much as the publishers.  And day one DLC?  Unless they've got a separate team working on it, it's going to be stuff cut out of the main game.  They used Dragon Age: Origins as an example of this which was a mistake due to the developers already having talked about it.  The Day One DLC was indeed a fully fleshed part of the game that was not included due to time constraints; however they managed to finish it just before release.  I'd say that is the exception, not the rule.

Developer:  Game is done and ready for gold!
Publisher: What parts can we lock out to cripple the aftermarket?

That is not talk about key feature and plot points being removed.

Online in UFC is NOT a key feature, and I'd bet that it is a very small percentage of people that own the game that ever even try it online much less actually play it as a key aspect. It is no different than any other one on one sport game in that respect.

Either way it is absolutely no different than what EA was doing. Again... EXACT SAME. That isn't a slippery slope to something worse. That is the EXACT SAME.

It is not a key plot point removed. It is not a key level removed.

It is online play that is going to cost extra for those buying used. If online play is important to you, then chances are you aren't buying it used in the first place, because online communities for 90%+ of the games out there have very short lifespans. If buying it used and paying the $5-10 isn't a good enough value to you, then don't buy it. There is absolutely no reason the developers should feel obligated to give that to you for free, when they received no money from you for the purchase of the game.

If you buy a used car, you aren't going to be getting any Onstar or Sirius for free either. It is something extra that they provide for a fee, even though the ability is built into the car.

[Slippyblade]

[quote ]
If you buy a used car, you aren't going to be getting any Onstar or Sirius for free either. It is something extra that they provide for a fee, even though the ability is built into the car.
[/quote]

Ah, but if I buy a new car and don't want those features that new car COSTS LESS because they are optional added.  Sooooo, using your own analogy if I play UFC and don't want the online play then the new copy of the game should cost me $5 less.  Or maybe Madden 2011 should cost me $10 less.

Also, how can you not see this as a slippery slope argument?  EA says they are doing it and not a week goes by when 2 other publishers jump up and down screaming, "ME TOO!!"

I'm done arguing it at any rate.

[versapak]

Ah, but if I buy a new car and don't want those features that new car COSTS LESS because they are optional added.  Sooooo, using your own analogy if I play UFC and don't want the online play then the new copy of the game should cost me $5 less.  Or maybe Madden 2011 should cost me $10 less.

Also, how can you not see this as a slippery slope argument?  EA says they are doing it and not a week goes by when 2 other publishers jump up and down screaming, "ME TOO!!"

I'm done arguing it at any rate.

 


Yeah...

Okay...


If you want the online play, then you buy it NEW or you pay the extra little bit. If you buy the freaking game new, you don't pay anything extra.

If you buy a game used, then the developer doesn't owe you anything. Also piracy is a big concern, and this way they can ensure that the pirates are still going to have to shell out some cash to the makers if they want to play online.

If it is a big deal to you. Then buy the game new.

If you don't want to buy the game new, then you probably don't really care all that much about playing online anyway. If you do, then make sure your "deal" you get on a used copy is good enough that the online fee you would be required to pay keeps the deal worthy.


Again...

Because they are not giving their online play away free to used game buyers, renters, and pirates does not mean they are on some slippery path to exclusion of key plot points or levels.

There is absolutely NO indication of such things, and there is no reports that devs are considering such a move.

Arguing that online play is a key plot point or level is ridiculous. Online is an extra feature in 99% of game out there. Maybe it is the one feature YOU want. If it is, and you don't want to pay the dev by buying the game new (so as to pay them for their actual work in making and supporting it) or paying the small fee for it when buying used (so as to pay them for their actual work in making and supporting it), then you are the ass, not them.

[shateredsoul]

Ah, but if I buy a new car and don't want those features that new car COSTS LESS because they are optional added.  Sooooo, using your own analogy if I play UFC and don't want the online play then the new copy of the game should cost me $5 less.  Or maybe Madden 2011 should cost me $10 less.

Also, how can you not see this as a slippery slope argument?  EA says they are doing it and not a week goes by when 2 other publishers jump up and down screaming, "ME TOO!!"

I'm done arguing it at any rate.

Alright EA,

He used "slippery slope" because slowly other companies were joining the bandwagon (or did I misuse that too), it was a figure of speech.. and everyone understood exactly what he meant by it, no need to be nitpicky.

I consider online play a key feature of fighting games and sports games, maybe back in the day this wasn't the case, but today a game will receive a worse score for having laggy online play.  Most people I know play their systems online (from highschool age to almost 30s).  If I paid 60 dollars for my game, and I want to give it to my younger cousin or a friend, they should be able to play online at no extra cost since I'm giving them my game. 

The purpose of this fee is NOT to cover the cost of supplying server.. you'd have to be pretty thickheaded to believe that.

If that was the  So I guess the DLC that is only offered to those who buy a game new is so that people who buy used have to buy the DLC,  in order to pay for the Development cost of the game, but wait.. I thought those first initial 60 from the person who bought the game new went to support the game development. 

If making games has become unprofitable because of the used game market... they would stop making games right? they'd go bankrupt.. not have enough to pay their employees, servers, or rent.  But... *gasp* they still continued making games through the 90s... and most of 2000s, and somehow survived without charging for online play. If only games were making as much money as the early 2000's so they could give us free online play again.

Another mystery, some companies that make much less profit than EA and ubisoft.. somehow, they can afford to provide online play for no extra charge to anyone.


"EA paid about $275 million in cash for 2-year-old Playfish, which makes games for people to play on computers with friends, unlike traditional video games that need dedicated consoles." - cnbc.com

That quote was from an article from last Novermber, 2009... I guess EA is suffering, and loosing a lot of it's money.  No wonder they are going after the used game market! Honestly though, they have no way of knowing whether those who buy used would buy new if used games didn't exist... some would, but how do they figure out if it's worth it to do that at the cost of pissing off customers who buy both new and used?


 


Yeah...

Okay...


If you want the online play, then you buy it NEW or you pay the extra little bit. If you buy the freaking game new, you don't pay anything extra.

If you buy a game used, then the developer doesn't owe you anything. Also piracy is a big concern, and this way they can ensure that the pirates are still going to have to shell out some cash to the makers if they want to play online.

If it is a big deal to you. Then buy the game new.

If you don't want to buy the game new, then you probably don't really care all that much about playing online anyway. If you do, then make sure your "deal" you get on a used copy is good enough that the online fee you would be required to pay keeps the deal worthy.


Again...

Because they are not giving their online play away free to used game buyers, renters, and pirates does not mean they are on some slippery path to exclusion of key plot points or levels.

There is absolutely NO indication of such things, and there is no reports that devs are considering such a move.

Arguing that online play is a key plot point or level is ridiculous. Online is an extra feature in 99% of game out there. Maybe it is the one feature YOU want. If it is, and you don't want to pay the dev by buying the game new (so as to pay them for their actual work in making and supporting it) or paying the small fee for it when buying used (so as to pay them for their actual work in making and supporting it), then you are the ass, not them.

[Ginsu Victim]

I'm not taking the time to find your replies in there....

[Hoopz]

I'm not taking the time to find your replies in there....

+1

I do think it's an interesting point that if online play costs $10 ($5 or whatever) for a used game, that it could be priced a la carte.  Granted, no company will do that but that's one thing that people pick up on when you charge extra for something that's traditionally not been done before.  I hear it quite a bit from certain people depending on my pricing models.   

[versapak]

I'm not taking the time to find your replies in there....

+1

I do think it's an interesting point that if online play costs $10 ($5 or whatever) for a used game, that it could be priced a la carte.  Granted, no company will do that but that's one thing that people pick up on when you charge extra for something that's traditionally not been done before.  I hear it quite a bit from certain people depending on my pricing models.   

The thing is though...

They are NOT charging extra. If you buy the game new, then it cost the same that it always has.

If you buy a game used, they still aren't charging you extra, as it wasn't them that charged you in the first place. You do now have to consider if the used price is actually a value though. Maybe that online play is important to you... Well, if you want it, you now have to actually financially support the dev/publisher.

If you pirate your games, rent them, or buy them used, then the developer/publisher doesn't owe you a thing. You didn't pay them for the experience.


Also...

Yeah, I am not digging through that mess to find his reply either.

One thing I did see though was a comment about how the fee doesn't cover any online costs. I never said it did.

There are ongoing costs to devs/publishers to support online play though. If you are playing a game online, but didn't buy that game new, then you have not contributed one cent to that support, whether we are talking constantly updated and monitored MMOs or shooters like MW2.

The complete offline experience is still there, in all these games, to be had by anyone, regardless of how they acquired the game.

[Hoopz]

I'm not taking the time to find your replies in there....

+1

I do think it's an interesting point that if online play costs $10 ($5 or whatever) for a used game, that it could be priced a la carte.  Granted, no company will do that but that's one thing that people pick up on when you charge extra for something that's traditionally not been done before.  I hear it quite a bit from certain people depending on my pricing models.   

The thing is though...

They are NOT charging extra. If you buy the game new, then it cost the same that it always has.

If you buy a game used, they still aren't charging you extra, as it wasn't them that charged you in the first place. You do now have to consider if the used price is actually a value though. Maybe that online play is important to you... Well, if you want it, you now have to actually financially support the dev/publisher.

If you pirate your games, rent them, or buy them used, then the developer/publisher doesn't owe you a thing. You didn't pay them for the experience.


Also...

Yeah, I am not digging through that mess to find his reply either.

One thing I did see though was a comment about how the fee doesn't cover any online costs. I never said it did.

There are ongoing costs to devs/publishers to support online play though. If you are playing a game online, but didn't buy that game new, then you have not contributed one cent to that support, whether we are talking constantly updated and monitored MMOs or shooters like MW2.

The complete offline experience is still there, in all these games, to be had by anyone, regardless of how they acquired the game.

Perception dictates reality though.  People assume that if you are charging $10 for online play and they don't play online, that it should be $10 less for them to buy.  It's a feature of the game that they don't use so they don't think they should have to pay for it. 

An example from real life.  I volunteer with a boys group and we had a bowling tournament last Saturday.  Cost was $7.50 for them to bowl 3 games with shoe rental included.  People asked if they brought their own shoes, how much was bowling.  They didn't need to rent the shoes and didn't want to pay the same rate as those who did rent shoes. Again, they didn't want to pay the same rate for something when they weren't getting the same benefit or using all the features. 

I'm not saying it's right, but it's what people perceive. 

[Samstag]

Bad example.  It's been common practice for bowling alleys to charge different rates depending on whether you needed shoes.  That's something people know they can ask for.  Try asking a retailer to break up the Star Wars Trilogy DVD set and discount the value of Return of the Jedi because you don't need or want it.

You're more than welcome to ask a retailer to give you a discount on Modnation Racers, UFC 2010, Mass Effect 2, Bad Company 2, or any other current game that has a one-time use code.  If you manage to find a place with really great customer service it might even work out for you.  But I think you'll be wasting your time.

[Hoopz]

I didn't mention that the price was subsidized.  It's a valid example because it was a package at that price.  They could pay for their games separately but it would have been more than what the group paid.  

Those that don't want something (shoes or online play) will think they should get a discounted price because they aren't using all the features.  

[versapak]

I didn't mention that the price was subsidized.  It's a valid example.  Those that don't want something (shoes or online play) will think they should get a discounted price because they aren't using all the features. 

Oh well really. Not everything works the same.

Game developers and publishers are feeling that they are losing out to used game sales, rentals, and piracy, and this is one way to still earn from those.

Not everyone will like it, but it will be an overwhelming minority that are effected by it, so in the end they are pretty much SOL.

[versapak]

Overwhelming minority, eh?

I can't think of a single 'new video games' store beyond Wal-Mart or Best Buy.  (and both of them dabble in used games from time to time)

There's dozens of GameStops within driving distance of me.

If it was an overwhelming minority, why would they bother?  This thread demonstrates they're losing a ton of goodwill over this decision.

What the hell kind of statement is that?

Yes, used game sales are still a huge minority to new game sales, but that certainly doesn't mean there isn't money in it. Game stores themselves make far more profit on used games sales.

Also though... Those that play games online are still in the minority of overall game sales, and then factor in the minority of people that buy those games used...

The people effected by having to pay a little fee for online play after buying a used game is not by any stretch of the imagination a majority.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the number of online players is by any stretch small on some games though. Say there are 5,000,000 games sold, 2,000,000 people online... That is very much a minority, though it is still a huge number of players online. Even if it is a lot of people though, the point remains that they are the minority, and of that minority is yet another minority of people that bought the game used.

[shateredsoul]

I'm not taking the time to find your replies in there....

Hah ha ha whoa, wha happen?

Alright how about this, we all refrain from buying the games that charge the 10 bucks for online play or DLC until they get to be about $40-$30 dollars for a new copy, that way EA gets their money and we get an affordable price! Brilliant!

I agree with Versa, we should cater to the majority... the majority of people have 1 control (not 2), so lets just focus on making a 1 player experience! We all know that all that $$ and time they spend adding in the 2nd player options and figuring out to do split screen or not could be used to make street fighter IV a better 1 player experience, and all those other fighting, racing, and party games. 

[Malenko]

NO, I agree with Versa on this. And his onstar analogy is dead on. If you buy a new car with onstar and you dont want it, theres no impact on the MSRP. The dealer might cut you a break but it doesnt change what Chevy wants you to be charged.  Ive already come to the conclusion that for the most part I dont enjoy online play all that much, so I plan to let my live! subscription lapse (Ive been online for 3 years) I dont support EA or what they are doing so even though my EA purchases werent many, they are now none. If Ubisoft decides to follow suit, I'll stop buying their games. As consumers we have that choice and that power.

[shateredsoul]

NO, I agree with Versa on this. And his onstar analogy is dead on. If you buy a new car with onstar and you dont want it, theres no impact on the MSRP. The dealer might cut you a break but it doesnt change what Chevy wants you to be charged.  Ive already come to the conclusion that for the most part I dont enjoy online play all that much, so I plan to let my live! subscription lapse (Ive been online for 3 years) I dont support EA or what they are doing so even though my EA purchases werent many, they are now none. If Ubisoft decides to follow suit, I'll stop buying their games. As consumers we have that choice and that power.

 

[DaveMMR]

I agree with Malenko and Vera on this one as well.   It seems we gamers demand so much for as little as possible.  But we're forgetting that these big publishers like EA are in the business to make money and aren't about to cater to a group of consumers who purchase these games second-hand and contribute nothing to their revenue.   Online for these sports game is a bonus, not a main feature.   And I don't even think $10 is totally unreasonable considering you have 7-days to see if it's worth it. 

Everyone complaining about this price aren't aware that PC Gamers don't even have a used market anymore.   Unless you're willing to jump through hoops and risk viruses browsing through the seedier parts of the internet to obtain the key needed in order to play certain titles, you HAVE to buy it new.   This is particularly true of Steam titles (though they often offer A-List titles at discount prices during promotions).   And I can't go back and put these games I purchased on eBay.  It's mine, forever - like it or not.   And really, I don't think these measures were from the used-game market; it's mostly anti-piracy with an unfortunate side effect.   Either way, outcome's the same.

BTW: I'm not defending EA or any similar companies here.  Just stating the reality of things to come.  As the used game market grows and piracy increases, you're going to see companies implement similar measures.  Yes, it sucks but it is what it is. 

And as Malenko said, vote with your wallet if you don't agree. 

[shateredsoul]

hmm.. either way if you think about it, you'll still be able to get cheaper games (and new) if you wait, all games come down in price over time