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

[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