Miyamoto confessed that Nintendo is desperate to realise its "core [online] business structure".
Personally... the door to start charging has long gone and the system is too fragmented.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for onrine?
Post by: Mop it up on May 07, 2010, 04:22:41 PM
The only way they could get away with that is if the online offering is far more feature-full than what they currently offer. Few people would pay for the restrictive online play the Wii currently has.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for onrine?
Post by: BeautifulShy on May 07, 2010, 04:27:02 PM
I'm just going to say this. I don't really care for paying for online. It is like you have to pay to get a portion of a game that I already bought. I'm not a fan of charging for online.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for onrine?
Post by: Halbred on May 07, 2010, 04:32:16 PM
Nintendo games can be played online?
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for onrine?
Post by: Crimm on May 07, 2010, 04:42:49 PM
Am I the only person who saw "onrine" in the subject and was ready to funhaus this thread?
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for onrine?
Post by: Caterkiller on May 07, 2010, 04:47:43 PM
I'm kind of torn... I would like to have a full fledged online experience, but how much would I really be using it? Brawl is the only game where I was online 24/7 trying to play people. And what hassle it is to get in some chat room trade numbers, get back to my wii and insert everything there. I might be willing to pay just to get passed all that, might.
If an awesome multiplayer Star Fox came around with some great online interface that had me pay, I think I would do it.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for onrine?
Post by: Mop it up on May 07, 2010, 04:53:30 PM
Am I the only person who saw "onrine" in the subject and was ready to funhaus this thread?
No, but unlike you I actually did something about it.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Ian Sane on May 07, 2010, 06:15:41 PM
I've never really used online play on my Wii much because not enough of my friends have Wiis. To me it's just to play with my friends remotely when one can't all play in the same house. I don't care to play with strangers. I have one friend with a Wii that I could play such games with but I don't feel Nintendo has provided something really substancial for only two players. Co-op would work best for that. Most of Nintendo's online games are four-player free-for-alls. I go online to buy WiiWare or VC titles though, but I highly doubt Nintendo would charge for that.
No one is going to pay for Nintendo's online. No one. It's just isn't good enough. It's okayish for a free service but no one would pay for it. If Nintendo wants to charge online not only do they need to beef up their online service but their game selection as well. People pay for Xbox Live because it's got the games. It has first party and third party games and it has the sorts of games people like to play online like first person shooters. Nintendo has Mario Kart and Smash Bros and **** third party support. And pay-for-online is a hardcore gamers thing. Grandma isn't going to pay to play Wii Sports online. No one is. It's got to be core gamer stuff.
So Nintendo has to rehaul their online service, develop more core games including the types of mature violent games they don't like making and they absolutely HAVE to improve their third party support. They don't need a new console, they need a new image and a new focus. Pay-for-online will never fly with a casual non-gamer focused glorified last gen console provided by a company that until now has been clueless about online gaming and third party support.
Just thinking about how much Nintendo would have to change to even have a chance of making any money with such a model is overwhelming.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 07, 2010, 06:28:31 PM
I'm just going to say this. I don't really care for paying for online. It is like you have to pay to get a portion of a game that I already bought. I'm not a fan of charging for online.
Please tell me you don't play MMO's then (unless they are the free ones). With MMO's you have to pay just to play a game you already own, with other games you might pay just for part of it.
Also, the article does say that Miyamoto said "or give an online subscription that is free of charge, but then offer something extra for people that pay, so that they get some extra value?" That is what a lot of Korean games do, they let you play the game for free and make money by selling extra stuff (like better equipment).
If Nintendo did start charging, I think they would wait for their new systems to launch.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BeautifulShy on May 07, 2010, 06:34:59 PM
I'm just going to say this. I don't really care for paying for online. It is like you have to pay to get a portion of a game that I already bought. I'm not a fan of charging for online.
Please tell me you don't play MMO's then (unless they are the free ones). With MMO's you have to pay just to play a game you already own, with other games you might pay just for part of it.
Also, the article does say that Miyamoto said "or give an online subscription that is free of charge, but then offer something extra for people that pay, so that they get some extra value?" That is what a lot of Korean games do, they let you play the game for free and make money by selling extra stuff (like better equipment).
If Nintendo did start charging, I think they would wait for their new systems to launch.
Don't play MMOs. Cost to much for me and they tend to be addicting from what I have heard. Yeah this seems like something we don't need to worry about now as far as fees online from Nintendo.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Ymeegod on May 07, 2010, 10:14:48 PM
Paying isn't a bad idea as long as they match MS service.
Mario Kart with editor= Gold
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on May 08, 2010, 01:19:59 AM
I don't think the Wii has sufficient RAM to offer the sort of online experience people would be willing to pay money for. Maybe the Wii's successor can pull it off, but as it is I can't really see it.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Adrock on May 09, 2010, 02:50:00 AM
I don't think the Wii has sufficient RAM to offer the sort of online experience people would be willing to pay money for. Maybe the Wii's successor can pull it off, but as it is I can't really see it.
Not sure that's a problem. Xbox Live worked perfectly well on the original Xbox and I believe it has less RAM than the Wii. In any case, I don't think Miyamoto's comments are meant for the Wii. It's a little late to salvage that train wreck. I don't think I've really played that many games online on any console anyway so while I'm not a fan of charging for a subscription service of sorts, it wouldn't really affect me. Still, Sony has a pretty decent online service and that's free so I'm having a hard time believing Nintendo couldn't come up with something similar, especially considering they don't sell their consoles at a loss or even break even, they rarely lower the price of their games (Twilight Princess is still $50 as far as I know) and they make most of their money publishing titles. Does Nintendo really need to be charging or are they just pushing their profit margins? As a business, I guess you can't really blame them, especially if people are willing to pay it. I, however, support consumerism so I prefer to save money.
If they do end up charging, they could sweeten the deal. Xbox Live is $50 for a year which is less than $10 a month so charging even less than that would be nice as well as including Netflix streaming if they could pull that off.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on May 09, 2010, 12:23:48 PM
I just think it would fail because the xbox is already the "1337" online gamer system which people will pay for if they want the "best" online experience. Nintendo would have to compete with that, and I don't think it would be very successful. I think Nintendo is better off maintaining itself as the free low-end online experience just like Sony is doing.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: KDR_11k on May 09, 2010, 12:25:02 PM
I think they're probably thinking about MMOs more than XBL-style crap.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 09, 2010, 12:31:04 PM
I think we should look at what Nintendo could be offering here vs what is potentially on the table.
Xbox Live is probably the model they are looking to copyreinvent and XBL currently cost $50 a year which breaks down into roughly $4.17 a month. I figure if Nintendo adds a tiered Live like service but for $25-$30 a year (~$2.08-$2.50 a month) and keep current owner/online ratio* intact, they could have a very profitable online setup that be self sufficient on it's own without draining any resources from other things like games or system sales.
*
Quote
A new survey shows that the PS3 has the highest percent of connected users, but a little digging shows the real truth.
A new survey from The Diffusion Group shows that Sony’s Playstation 3 is the most connected of the 3 major consoles, with 78% of all the consoles connected to the internet. Oddly, that still puts them in third place for number of people online.
Sales figures show that the Playstation 3 has sold over 33 million units worldwide, while Microsoft’s Xbox 360 has sold over 39 million. Nintendo’s Wii continues to have a huge lead, selling over 69 million- which means that with 54 percent of Wii users online, Nintendo has more online users than Sony has consoles on the market.
I don't have an Xbox360 so I could say first hand, but to borrow from another source
XBox Live Silver: (Free) - Gamertag (name, score, etc.) - Access to demos (delayed), videos, patches, marketplace
XBox Live Gold: (VAS) - Multiplayer support for games - Gold services like Facebook, Netflix, etc.
Now what could Nintendo do that is similar only better and fits more into the Nintendo Way?
WiiConnect24: (Free) - Gamertag (name, score, etc.) - Access to demos, videos, patches, marketplace - Multiplayer support for games - Access to extras like Netflix & Internet browser
Platinum Pass: (VAS) - Free access to Club Nintendo Platinum Members - Online Access to Nintendo Magazine - Participation in online Nintendo sponsored tournaments (w/ prizes) - Free/Discounted in-game goodies - $10 credit towards WiiShop purchases - System wide voice chat (independent of in-game usage) - Universal Gamer code (no individual per game friend codes)
So let's pretend that the above is likely to happen, how would you want Nintendo to structure it? What would it take for you to pay $25-$30 a year for Nintendo Online?
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: KDR_11k on May 09, 2010, 01:36:12 PM
Stuff like a single friendcode would just piss people off if it was pay-only. We grudgingly accept the current model because we think that the system is just shoddy and can't do better, if they turn it into a deliberate crippling method that we need to pay to get around there will be no more excuse.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Mop it up on May 09, 2010, 02:31:45 PM
WiiConnect24: (Free) - Multiplayer support for games
Except if it's still free, it's going to be **** just like it is now. The only reason to pay for online is to improve the multiplayer component, and a "universal gamer code" is not going to cut it. They have to completely revamp everything about the multiplayer section.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: stevey on May 09, 2010, 07:39:09 PM
Nintendo online model is perfect right now and we will not get anything better by paying for it.
Do we really want this Mario galaxy 3: $50 unlock Luigi: 10 wii points unlock the final level: 15 wii points start a new play through: 20 wii points
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Dirk Temporo on May 09, 2010, 09:47:30 PM
Stuff like a single friendcode would just piss people off if it was pay-only. We grudgingly accept the current model because we think that the system is just shoddy and can't do better, if they turn it into a deliberate crippling method that we need to pay to get around there will be no more excuse.
the friend codes aren't shoddy because Nintendo is making a shoddy system, its because they are trying to make a system that prevents child predators and thus shields them from litigation. Although M rated game shouldn't have this because buying an M rated game means your an adult, but of course parents buy their kids M rated games anyways.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BranDonk Kong on May 10, 2010, 01:52:23 PM
Wii's online *COUGH* FRIEND CODE FOR (almostt) EVERY GAME *COUGH* just isn't worth paying for. Not even if it was $1 a year. If they ditched friend codes, and realized that GamerTags are the same thing, but more convenient, and people don't want to exchange codes with every person every time they buy a new game...then they could make something nice.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on May 10, 2010, 03:49:05 PM
Everyone hates Friend Codes. Maybe Nintendo could use lack of friend codes as an incentive to use their premium online service. Let's say you have the basic free online service that costs nothing, but uses Friend codes (much like now), but then ontop of that Nintendo also offered a premium gold online service thing that you had to pay for, but the huge draw for that is no friend codes.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 10, 2010, 03:53:52 PM
There's nothing premium about Nintendo products and services.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Ian Sane on May 10, 2010, 05:33:51 PM
Quote
Everyone hates Friend Codes. Maybe Nintendo could use lack of friend codes as an incentive to use their premium online service. Let's say you have the basic free online service that costs nothing, but uses Friend codes (much like now), but then ontop of that Nintendo also offered a premium gold online service thing that you had to pay for, but the huge draw for that is no friend codes.
So more or less Nintendo makes their free service suck on purpose so that people will pay for the better model that should be been in place on the Wii for free to begin with? Yeah, if that isn't illegal it should be. :@
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Adrock on May 10, 2010, 06:34:33 PM
Highly doubt that's the case. Nintendo didn't make a free service suck on purpose. They unintentionally made a free service that sucked. Period.
I don't think Friend Codes have anything to do with the service being free. Nintendo has to maintain the servers on their own dime regardless, just like Sony does with PSN. It's possible to ditch Friend Codes and have an online system that wasn't so unaccommodating and/or useless. Friend Codes are just a security feature and not because they're high tech or anything, but because they're annoying as f*ck. What pedophile has the patience to deal with Friend Codes? In that way, Friend Codes work.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Halbred on May 10, 2010, 07:09:03 PM
Not directly Nintendo-related (yet), but this may be a sign of things to come:
People may poo-poo this decision, but I say whatever gets Gamestop closer to going belly-up, I'm in favor of.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: ThePerm on May 10, 2010, 09:24:07 PM
i never sell my games and rarely buy used. I am the type of gamer EA wishes they had. Unfortunately, I prefer single player games, and i'm not a sports fan.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 10, 2010, 09:32:48 PM
Hal, why would ANYBODY be in favor of getting rid of the used game market? Would you want it that you could ONLY sell your car back to Ford/Toyota/GM, etc.? No, you would want to be able to sell it to any car dealership. While some GameStop employees are a-holes, in general thy are pretty good. This moronic decision by EA will only hurt them, I could possibly see it even helping sales of the Wii version (which will have online play and NOT require this stupid form of DRM).
That reminds me, why are those idiots suing GameStop? They should be suing Electronic Arts because it's EA that is making owners of used copies have to pay for online content.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 10, 2010, 10:31:36 PM
I think EA runs their own servers and the purchase of NEW games supports the cost of those servers.
If a lot of people just wait for the used copy, then the cost of the servers used for the online portion of the game is not being supported.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Ian Sane on May 11, 2010, 12:22:37 PM
Quote
People may poo-poo this decision, but I say whatever gets Gamestop closer to going belly-up, I'm in favor of.
You know Gamestop isn't the only store that sells used games. Are they so offensive that fucking over every gamer's consumer rights is worth it to see them fail?
I figure EA's plan will fail anyway. Gaming culture is full of hacker geeks that work around this stuff. All attempts to curb piracy fail, so this will fail.
This is even worse than DRM. DRM attempts to screw over pirates and instead screws over honest customers. But this specifically targets honest customers. It is illegal to steal videogames so I understand the incentive to try to prevent it. But no one buying a used videogame is breaking the law and I don't even think any common moral or ethic code would consider buying used videogames to be wrong. This is just giving their customers the finger.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 11, 2010, 12:46:05 PM
No. this is just giving used game shop the finger since the Original Dev/Pub don't see a dime of the money even though the used game player would continue to use their servers to play the game online.
Seems pretty fair to me.
I don't want a continual drain on my resources from someone that hasn't paid to use them. Stores like GS get all the used sales money(and rip the 2nd hand customers off in the process with the prices they charge) yet I'm supposed to allow these "freeloaders" access to my network when they didn't pay for the right to use it like every other 1st hand customer currently on the service?
Maybe GS should put up their own 2nd hand servers for 2nd hand buyers so that the money charged from 2nd hand games can support these online servers for the 2nd hand gamers. Online servers aren't free, so I don't see why everyone has this sense of entitlement to things they didn't create, earn or pay for.
You want to bitch to someone, bitch to the 2nd shops for not giving the dev/pub a slice of the used pie when the used buyer is still trying to use online servers.
Maybe they should work out a system where Used game shops fork over a piece of the used sale for online enabled games and that will generate them a code to use their used game on the game's servers. Or used game players can pay separately for access to the online servers and then the Dev/Pub gets the reimbursement they need for keeping the servers up and running.
If stores like GS don't want to help the cause, and the 2nd hand buyer wants to get their game online, then maybe they should just spend the extra $5 and buy the game new.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Ian Sane on May 11, 2010, 01:44:35 PM
Quote
You want to bitch to someone, bitch to the 2nd shops for not giving the dev/pub a slice of the used pie when the used buyer is still trying to use online servers.
I don't see any difference between a used game store and a fuckin' garage sale. If they got into this whole slice of the user pie bullshit they would also go after Joe Blow, selling his used game on eBay. The ability to sell something you already bought to someone else is a good right to have. They step in here on videogames and it'll have the potential to spread to everything. Next thing I know I can't sell my car without Toyota hitting me up for their share. We don't deserve to have our rights squashed because Gamestop are dicks.
If EA hates Gamestop so much maybe they should stop having a business relationship with them. Sure, they can't stop used sales but Gamestop gets in NEW EA games and takes pre-orders for them and the whole bit. If the game industry hates Gamestop so much they can cut Gamestop out and then Gamestop has NO new games whatsoever, no new sytems or accessories or even official strategy guides and is basically a glorified flea market.
They don't do that because they want to use Gamestop's BS to pressure authorities to outlaw used game sales so they can get that cut they want but are not entitled to. They make so many copies of a game so they only deserve one purchase per physical copy. Besides there are no used sales for downloadable titles so if the future moves towards that they're fine.
The irony is also that if people want to continue to play your game they won't trade it in and online play is a good way to keep people playing. The feature itself discourages used sales. It's the I-beat-this-in-three-days games that get traded in right away.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on May 11, 2010, 01:52:18 PM
Nintendo didn't intentionally sabotage their online service. You have to give them some slack because first off its their first online effort, and naturally it won't be the best for that reason. Secondly, everyone hates friend codes, but Nintendo had at least good intentions for using that in order to ensure a more family friendly online environment, free of pedophiles of course, but also an environment free of racial slurs and swearing. Anyone who has ever used PSN or Live knows how bad and how prevalent that sort of foul language is.
I think it would be a good compromise if Nintendo required friend codes for games rated E, but didn't require them for games rated M (and possibly T). Children shouldn't be playing M rated games anyway, so there is no need to try to shield them from online content.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Ian Sane on May 11, 2010, 02:11:07 PM
Quote
Nintendo didn't intentionally sabotage their online service. You have to give them some slack because first off its their first online effort, and naturally it won't be the best for that reason.
I know they didn't. But it would be really shitty for them to fix it and then charge for it. Pay extra for something that is merely competent? That's crap!
I however give them ZERO slack for it being their first online effort because it shouldn't be their first online effort. Everyone else started this stuff last gen and, what a surprise, they're doing a better job than Nintendo is. Nintendo CHOSE to have a lack of experience. I thought that was a dumb decision at the time because I figured THIS EXACT SITUATION would occur and I was right, so **** 'em. Besides Nintendo should be aware of what other companies have done with online gaming and learn from that. Again, they CHOOSE to have tunnel vision and do everything their own way from scratch and if that blows up in their face it's their own fault.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 11, 2010, 02:17:21 PM
The irony is also that if people want to continue to play your game they won't trade it in and online play is a good way to keep people playing. The feature itself discourages used sales. It's the I-beat-this-in-three-days games that get traded in right away.
If the online wasn't enough to keep the game for then the 2nd hand buyer probably won't use it either. Which means who cares if there is no online code/access.
I'm saying that game servers cost money and people that buy the game new supports those servers. It's built into the cost of the game to keep those servers up and running. When Used game shops sell games that focus heavily on online play, the server is seeing users that didn't pay in for the right to use the server. That's not fair to the dev/pub regardless of who they are.
The only way your car example would fit is if there was a Car sale with a $1000 rebate on all (let's say) Toyota's and some guy just bought a Toyota on Craig's list and is now complaining that he doesn't get the $1000 rebate. If you wanted the rebate, then you should have bought the car from the dealer, not a private 2nd hand seller.
if 2nd hand gamers want to access the online portion of games, then they should either purchase the game new or buy an online code. Servers are not free, and dev/pubs like EA should have to bear the cost of the servers for people that didn't even help to support them in the first place.
And I'm not suggesting that all used game sales should give a portion back to the dev/pub, just the ones that require continued support and cost to the dev/pub, such as titles that use online and have dedicated servers to provide it.
Gamestop for example will Sell a new game for $50, buy back the same game a week later for $25 and then resell it 20 minutes later for $45. So I don't feel any sympathy for a company such as EA decreasing the value of a used sale purchase over the purchase of a New copy of the game, especially when companies like GS will purposely order low amounts of copies to they can push all their used/open copies out the door to unsuspecting customers that think they're getting a deal.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: vudu on May 11, 2010, 02:33:28 PM
This is even worse than DRM. DRM attempts to screw over pirates and instead screws over honest customers. But this specifically targets honest customers. ... This is just giving their customers the finger.
If you buy a used game you're not EA's customer. You're only EA's customer if you buy the game new, in which case this wouldn't hurt you at all.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 11, 2010, 02:41:47 PM
After reading on this a little more, I do have one concern about this online code thing.
If you buy the game, activate your one time code, and now your friend/brother/sister/whoever wants to play with you, will they be able to access all the stuff the code unlocks while it's being used on the unlocked system, or does it only unlock for one account and every other player needs their own unlock code to join in on all the online features?
I'm all for 2nd hand buyers paying their own way, but if I legitimately bought a New copy and wanted to play 4 player online with my family on the same system using the same TV, or my brother/sister/dad wanted to start their own game, I shouldn't have to shell out an additional $30 to cover them all on online access for the game. That is not acceptable.
So I hope they unlock a system and not just a single user account.
edit: looks like that's already been taken care of (http://www.easports.com/onlinepass)
Quote from: EA Q&A
Do I need an unique Online Pass for every user on my console? No. One Online Pass will give online access to multiple users logged into the console where the Online Pass was first activated (subject to the console manufacturer’s and EA online terms of service).
Also, the user that activated the Online Pass will be allowed to access online features on other consoles (of the same manufacturer) by logging into the same account credentials that they used when they enabled the Online Pass.
p.s. I also wonder what they are gonna do for rental places. $3 added to rental price for 5 day online pass?
wonder how this affects Gamefly and the already sinking Blockbuster if it takes off.
edit2: I guess this question has been answered too.
Quote from: EA Q&A
Do I need to purchase an Online Pass when I rent a game? Each Xbox LIVE gamertag or Sony PSN ID is entitled to a free 7 day trial per title. Beyond that, users will be required to redeem or purchase Online Pass access.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Guitar Smasher on May 11, 2010, 03:17:00 PM
I don't understand the hate for online services in used games. If I buy a game - new- and later sell it to someone else, including the 'license' to play online, then what's the problem? Sure the 2nd buyer is not compensating the publisher, but the cost of the online 'license' was covered in my original purchase.
If you're arguing that the cost of the original purchase only 'pays' for the online component for an undefined limited time, and that the publisher is not prepared to offer the service through the usage of multiple owners, then that is a flaw inherent with the structure of online games. Don't devalue the product for the consumer, just because your business model is faulty.
Oh, and while I don't have the opportunity to shop at a Gamestop, from what I've heard I'd never shop there anyhow. So don't think I'm taking sides with them. I'm just defending the consumer.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: KDR_11k on May 11, 2010, 03:55:39 PM
"Just x$ a year to remove the stupid system we put in place that you all hate and think we shouldn't have invented in first place" isn't a good sales pitch.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Ian Sane on May 11, 2010, 04:41:13 PM
Quote
I don't understand the hate for online services in used games. If I buy a game - new- and later sell it to someone else, including the 'license' to play online, then what's the problem? Sure the 2nd buyer is not compensating the publisher, but the cost of the online 'license' was covered in my original purchase.
That's a great point. Let's say I buy their game and play it online for two years. Meanwhile Bob buys a different copy and plays it online for 1 year, sells it, and Jim buys it and plays it online for another year. Two copies of the game, two accounts that played the game for two years. What difference in there in the cost to EA between me and this group of two people that played the same game for the same amount of time as me? There isn't and this is the whole flaw with the reasoning. Even without online stuff if I sell my game I CAN'T PLAY IT ANYMORE. So it isn't like anyone is getting something for free. You make one copy of the game and you make your money back on that one copy of the game. Whether one person plays it or 10 should make no difference. To me this is like if I bought season tickets to a sports team, couldn't make it to all the games, and sold them to someone else I knew who could make it. That one seat at the arena has been sold and it should make no difference who the hell sits in it.
This whole thing comes about entirely out of greed. These companies want more money and they look at a used purchase as a potential source of revenue if they could outlaw it and force a new purchase or get a piece of the action. That's all it is. When it comes to IP companies get mad about the idea of people showing a DVD at a party and everyone getting to watch it for free. They get mad about a bar playing music because all these people hear it for free. They don't even like the idea of us owning the copy we buy. They talk about us buying "licences" because they don't like the idea of someone taking good care of something and making use of it for a long time. They want that repurchase or that fee to keep using it. My dad used to make tapes of tapes he bought to use in the car because he was afraid the car stereo would chew it up. They used to freak about stuff like that because if they could prevent that from happening he would have to buy a second copy instead or replace his original that got chewed up.
If the videogame industry could legally get away with deactivating every game you buy each year and force you to buy it again to reactivate it, they would. This isn't piracy where someone is stealing from them. They just don't like the idea of anyone getting a break in a situation where they could potentially get money from them. All it is is trying to generate revenue out of every source possible.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 11, 2010, 04:58:05 PM
Playing on THEIR online servers is like getting a Season Pass at the local Amusement Park.
You Paid for it and it is for your use and your use only.
You can't got to the park twice, decide you had enough and then sell your pass to the next the next person. It just doesn't work that way since that person didn't pay the park to continually use the parks equipment for their own enjoyment. If they want unfettered access to the activities inside, then they have to purchase their own pass.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Ian Sane on May 11, 2010, 05:21:13 PM
Quote
Playing on THEIR online servers is like getting a Season Pass at the local Amusement Park.
You Paid for it and it is for your use and your use only.
You can't got to the park twice, decide you had enough and then sell your pass to the next the next person.
Why the hell not?! Cuz they said I can't? If I'm not riding those rides then the amusement park isn't paying for any extra ride maintenance. The amount of people in the park is the same so it doesn't affect how many staff members they have working to handle it. I'm not using their bathrooms. They're not cleaning up my trash. The financial cost of handling those two customers sharing a pass is the same as if I alone just did it by myself.
I just see this as a kneejerk "nuh uh, that's not fair" reaction from the companies involved. One person's season of using the amusement park has been paid for. Someone will be riding those rides. You're not out of any money because no one is entering the park for free. If the park owner didn't know they wouldn't care. They would just assume it was the same guy going to the park the whole time.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 11, 2010, 05:21:51 PM
Bnm: Stuff
But... transfer of ownership and related priviledges due to being the sole possessor of the "pass"... you've forfeited those benefits. One "pass" for one active user.
I can sell you a WoW account, etc etc.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 11, 2010, 06:38:51 PM
I can see both sides of the argument, but it's not like they are taking the game away and saying you can't play it anymore. They are just saying that if you want to join in the online portions of the game, using our servers, then you have to pay the toll to cross the bridge.
Times are tough, game cost are rising, used game sales are hurting the bottom line. Companies have to find new ways to make revenue to keep paying those ever increasing salaries for seasoned and educated employees and this is one way to do it. You don't want to pay for the online portion? fine, don't pay it, don't play it and wait till you can buy it used. No one is forcing online extras on you.
But if you want to play using whatever the online extras are for that game, then your new purchase or purchase of an online code, gives you (and anyone on your machine) full access to those areas so long as they exist.
We wouldn't have to worry about this at all if GS had just gave a little back for used games sales, so why don't we all just blame this on them.... even though they seem to be fine with this whole EA online pass thing.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on May 11, 2010, 07:17:47 PM
I'm with BnM on this one (except for the part about GS paying EA back). There's a difference between goods and services, and while the transfer of ownership of goods is well established by case law, the transfer of access rights to services is not. It's almost always subject to a separate agreement, such as Terms of Service.
The problem EA and other game publishers have is that they can't find a way to add value for new game purchases without at least appearing to be holding out on us. We gamers are a petulant bunch.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 11, 2010, 07:31:18 PM
Yeah, there's still the problem that EA simply wasn't providing a product with prime value, value that would keep someone from letting it go, and value that would attract customers to buy it new. GameStop is fostering second-hand sales behavior, but EA should be concerned with why so many "customers" aren't holding on to their products and ways to get substantially more people to buy new product (Wall of Shame?), making second-hand sales a minor issue.
If online services is an extra cost EA is not willing to completely absorb (cuz they're not so successful like others?), then let them apply both the "new game" online privilege and the minor online code purchase. The market will work itself out.
Wish Wii had the option for simple "OK, I'll host this game" peer-to-peer online multiplayer instead of all this centralized server BS and gamertag online profile crap. Just a simple "my machine finds your machine on the interwebbles, and we play."
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 11, 2010, 07:41:58 PM
Black, you keep harping about EA's servers, why? EA wants to use their own servers, they don't HAVE too. In fact, they refused to put online play into the Xbox versions of their games until Microsoft agreed to let them use their own servers rather than the Xbox Live servers.
As for the car example, this would be like not being allowed to use the radio and AC if you bought it used. Why should GameStop and all of the other stores that sell used games give ANY money to publishers? You don't see that happening with used CDs, DVDs, furniture, cars, or any other industry that lets you buy pre-owned. Do you also complain about rental places? Those are just as bad, maybe even worse, than stores that do sell new games.
If EA does go through with this stupid plan, I hope they immediately get hit with a lawsuit.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 11, 2010, 08:16:44 PM
The difference is just like UPB pointed out.
Your car example doesn't work since it nothing alike. It's more like the second owner of the car bitching about not getting the free 6 months of OnStar service that the original owner got with the purchase of the car from the Ford dealer.
this doesn't prevent you in anyway from enjoying your copy of the game if you bought it 1st, 2nd3rd or fourth as the entire game is on the disc. This only prevents you from benefiting from the addition online services that are attached to the game and maintained by the dev/pub. That is an ongoing cost to the publisher that most can't afford to just continue to swallow.
Yes it is EA's choice to run their own servers, but that is a business decision. If you had the choice to sell loans, and you were capable of renting your own office space, getting your own license and providing your own leads, would you give up 30% of your commission and your client base to let someone else provide that for you? Of course not. EA can provide for themselves and info is power. They have no need to rely on someone else to service their loyal customer base and you can't blame them for wanting to keep their online services self-sufficient by bringing in revenue to keep the servers up and running without draining from the companies other resources.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 11, 2010, 08:29:55 PM
My point on the servers is that this can not be used as an excuse because they are choosing they shoulder that burden themselves rather than have Microsoft pay for the costs. Neither EA nor messageboard posters can bitch about EA being allowed to do this to pay for a cost that they are CHOOSING to pay for themselves. I would compare it to a concert promoter being offered free security services by the arena, but deciding to hire their own security and then passing the cost on to ticketbuyers. Why should ticketbuyers have to pay extra because the promoter decided to not use the free service? That is EXACTLY what is happening here. Why should consumers have to pay for server costs because Electronic Arts wants to use their own servers rather than using the free service Microsoft provides for them? If they want to run their own servers, fine. But then they can't ever use that as an excuse to charge extra for services (and neither can any message board posters).
You and I may disagree on the car thing, I still feel you are wrong.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 11, 2010, 08:50:51 PM
MIcrosoft runs all the servers, profits from the all information gathered from every user and all ad revenue generated doing so, or EA runs their own server and profits from the information gathered from their own users and the ad revenue generated too.
with a company the size of EA, why would you give all that up when you are perfectly capable of handling it yourself?
and it's not like they are upping the cost to the customer. It's still free to the paying customer or the lucky 2nd hander that got an unused code. They are only charging the people that decided to wait for a cheaper price used or got it for free from a friend. These are the people that are basically trying to get something for nothing and EA is trying to put an end to it, closing a loop hole and trying to get paid for services rendered.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: NWR_insanolord on May 11, 2010, 09:02:30 PM
But why does EA need more money for servers just because someone bought the game used? The price of the server is factored into the price of the game, and, since the person who sold the game wouldn't be able to use it anymore, the new owner wouldn't cause anymore strain on the network than if the original buyer had kept it and continued to play it. If someone sells the game two weeks after launch and someone buys it for $5 less than new, the server maintenance the first person paid for would be far from used up.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Guitar Smasher on May 11, 2010, 09:12:07 PM
These are the people that are basically trying to get something for nothing and EA is trying to put an end to it, closing a loop hole and trying to get paid for services rendered.
No, those are thieves and pirates. Do you consider people who can only afford used cars or who shop at second-hand stores, in the same way?
You're treating the online component like some sort of gift that EA is rewarding it's customers with. It's a selling point, and the purchase of the game comes with the implied guarantee that the service will be offered for as long as reasonably possible. What EA is doing is blatant double-dipping, without offering any value in return. Now I don't know anything about the legality of what's suggested, but I do know that down the line this will result in lost sales because the value of the product has decreased. And you better believe that resell value does matter to a huge chunk of gamers, otherwise chains like GS wouldn't exist.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 11, 2010, 09:22:14 PM
Just because EA eats the cost of additional server usage after whatever cost was factored into buying the original game doesn't mean that you can just pass it around to whomever and every should enjoy it equally. The cost of running a server is not a set cost like the cost of producing the game that is on the disc. Servers are updated, optimized, maintenanced and constantly on providing a centralized place for all users to connect. That's not including whatever additional content that may come with a online connection, like updated rosters, gameplay updates, tournaments, DLC, patches, etc etc.
The game disc is your to do with as you please, but the online portion of the game is not on the disc. You want to resell your game? then fine, you still have the option to come back at anytime since your pass has already been activated, but just because you left the game early doesn't mean the next person off the street can buy your ticket and assume your identity and take your place. That person needs to check in at the front desk and get their own ticket using their own identity.
and if someone bought the game for $5 less than new because they wanted to save $5, then it's gonna cost them $5 more than if they had just bought it new to play online. Maybe they get lucky and the first user didn't use their online code, but really, unless you saving a whole bunch of money, why buy someone elses second hand stuff when a new one barely cost more?
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 11, 2010, 09:29:29 PM
"The game disc is your to do with as you please, but the online portion of the game is not on the disc. You want to resell your game? then fine, you still have the option to come back at anytime since your pass has already been activated, but just because you left the game early doesn't mean the next person off the street can buy your ticket and assume your identity and take your place. That person needs to check in at the front desk and get their own ticket using their own identity."
This makes sense on the grounds of information gathering. Buyer A calls it quits, and their online absence is noted.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 11, 2010, 09:31:41 PM
These are the people that are basically trying to get something for nothing and EA is trying to put an end to it, closing a loop hole and trying to get paid for services rendered.
No, those are thieves and pirates. Do you consider people who can only afford used cars or who shop at second-hand stores, in the same way?
You're treating the online component like some sort of gift that EA is rewarding it's customers with. It's a selling point, and the purchase of the game comes with the implied guarantee that the service will be offered for as long as reasonably possible. What EA is doing is blatant double-dipping, without offering any value in return. Now I don't know anything about the legality of what's suggested, but I do know that down the line this will result in lost sales because the value of the product has decreased. And you better believe that resell value does matter to a huge chunk of gamers, otherwise chains like GS wouldn't exist.
I'm not calling second hand users theives, but they aren't paying the cost to the people it should go to, they are reimbursing the person that paid the cost(or giving the profits to the person/company that reimbursed the cost), there is a difference.
as for everything else. It's a free market and no one is entitled to anything. EA is announcing this ahead of time so there are no surprises. If you don't like it, then don't buy it. If it turns out to not be a viable way for EA to do business anymore, they will change it, but you get to vote with your dollars.
It could be a slippery slope that EA starting, but really what can you do. I'm all for free online for everyone, but there is a lot of $$$ behind the scenes and just because it doesn't benefit/cost you directly, to stay in business these companies have to look at the bottom line. As much as they would love for things to carry on as usual and everyone is profitable and everything is good, that is not the situation and you have to understand that videogames are not solely to please the enduser but as a business to generate profit.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 11, 2010, 09:41:18 PM
"The game disc is your to do with as you please, but the online portion of the game is not on the disc. You want to resell your game? then fine, you still have the option to come back at anytime since your pass has already been activated, but just because you left the game early doesn't mean the next person off the street can buy your ticket and assume your identity and take your place. That person needs to check in at the front desk and get their own ticket using their own identity."
This makes sense on the grounds of information gathering. Buyer A calls it quits, and their online absence is noted.
and information is power. Why would EA give up this power to MS when EA has millions of users across all consoles and PC's?
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 12, 2010, 03:06:48 AM
If my argument didn't sum up what I was trying to say, then let these analyst put it in a way that I may not have been able to communicate clear enough;
EA Sports' Online Pass 'Brilliant,' EA 'Charging Too Little,' says Analyst (http://www.industrygamers.com/news/ea-sports-online-pass-brilliant-ea-charging-too-little-says-analyst/) Just 3 full quotes from the link. click through for more
Quote from: Michael Pachter
I think it's brilliant, and don't think that it's intended to "battle" used sales. The concept is simple: as gamers migrate to heavier online play as a part of the experience, the publisher needs to be compensated.
If the gamer is the original purchaser, the publisher gets paid when the user buys the game; if the gamer is a second-hand purchaser, the publisher currently does not get paid. With Online Pass, EA is ensuring that second-hand purchasers will pay something for the maintenance of the server network and for access to premium content, since they extend the costs of providing these services.
Yes, I think it will become the norm at the major publishers, and think that EA is charging too little...
Quote from: David Cole
I think the game industry has created a problem for itself by giving consumers unlimited online game play for free. I think not just to battle used games, but as a basic business sense of generating more revenue from usage more and more of these programs will be looked at being implemented.
How consumers react is a totally different issue.
But overall the EA Sports Online Pass seems like a mild introduction. I can see consumers griping, but really it seems entirely fair that if a consumer is buying a second hand copy they are not going to get direct support from the publisher. It is not like they are charging a season pass for all users that want to play Madden online.
The reality is that these games are pretty expensive to develop and it is unrealistic to expect companies to support free online play forever. I think the bottom line in the industry requires companies to start to find ways to monetize online usage.
Quote from: Jesse Divnich
I am still on the fence on whether discouraging used sales significantly impacts the purchase of new titles. Arguments have been made that used sales can positively impact the sale of new products, specifically if a consumer is trading in used titles in order to purchase new games; however, I understand EA's point of view.
I believe the EA Sports Online Pass is a positive for Electronic Arts.
As more users become connected and take advantage of multiplayer features, developers are focusing more resources into the post-development process by supporting multiplayer features such as updating rosters, paying for bandwidth/servers, adding free DLC, and managing the community. Whilst there is an inherent argument that a consumer purchasing a used copy of a game solely to play the content on the disc (single player mode) poses no financial cost to the publisher (aside from the possible loss of a new sale), this is not true for the multiplayer experience. Technically, if a consumer purchases a used game and then takes advantage of any feature that requires post-launch resources (multiplayer) then that consumer is free-riding, and becomes a direct financial burden to the publisher, albeit a small burden per user, but when multiplied by 100,000 used purchases, those costs quickly add up.It is only fair that publishers recoup some revenue from consumers who take advantage of these post-launch game features. The traditional video game landscape is quickly evolving and no longer is the complete gaming experience enjoyed by the content solely on the physical disk. Seven years ago, when you purchased Grand Theft Auto for $50, the entire experience was encapsulated on a DVD; in 2010 that is no longer the case. The EA Sports Online Pass is a service that simply says, "If you plan on taking advantage of features not included on the disc, we ask that you pay a small fee." To me, that sounds perfectly reasonable.
I say bravo to Electronic Arts.
I think all 3 of those (bolded) quotes sum up how I feel about it perfectly. I think there is nothing more for me to say on the subject.
edit: I don't buy yearly sports titles(exception of TW10 & probably TW11) and hardly play online, but I almost never buy used, so this would never affect me. I can't really sympathize for the 2nd handers since you can always find new games for cheap if you know where to look, and if you wait long enough to buy used, even with the $10 surcharge, you could still be getting a really good deal.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 12, 2010, 03:22:46 AM
I want to setup my own private Pro Server for Casual Non-gamers.
It'll be free.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BranDonk Kong on May 12, 2010, 01:40:38 PM
Who cares if the dev doesn't get more money when the game gets sold used? What's the difference - the original owner is no longer playing the game online, since they don't have it anymore, and now someone else is playing it instead. Also, it is very much like buying a used car - because when you buy a used car (in a reasonable amount of time) you still get the remainder of the warranty, included services, etc. This is very similar to buying used games, since after a few years online service is dropped for older games. Again, I could really care less, since I'll never buy an EA Sports game.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on May 12, 2010, 02:41:39 PM
Again, I could really care less, since I'll never buy an EA Sports game.
Yeah, but the problem is it creates a precedence that other companies may follow, and it may one day become the standard. That's the real threat here, even if you hate EA and don't buy their products.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 12, 2010, 02:45:20 PM
I believe it would only be relevant to Companies that have games that they maintain dedicated servers for.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: broodwars on May 12, 2010, 03:04:42 PM
Again, I could really care less, since I'll never buy an EA Sports game.
Yeah, but the problem is it creates a precedence that other companies may follow, and it may one day become the standard. That's the real threat here, even if you hate EA and don't buy their products.
You think it's a bad precedence to actually encourage people to buy a game new? Sorry, but I have no problem with EA's whole "Online Pass" thing (it helps that I don't play online multiplayer very often, and certainly never in an EA Sports title). If you buy the game new, you get the pass for free. If you buy a $60 used for $50, you're pretty much back where you started so it's better to still buy it new. Even if you buy the game used for less than that, even with the Online Pass you still saved money over the new copy. And if you don't care about Online Play (like I do), this doesn't affect you. The only thing hurt by this is GameStop (which is why I'm wondering why they're in support of it).
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Stogi on May 12, 2010, 03:14:17 PM
how about they make a game that doesn't suck so people don't feel the need to sell it back.
problem solved.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 12, 2010, 03:18:25 PM
Does GS get a nice chunk out of XBLA/PSN Points cards?
Because that is what they would have to sell to used customers so they can buy their Online Pass unless they can sell the Online Pass directly.
But this doesn't really hurt GS all that much(in the short term) since most used game buyers probably won't be aware of this until after they make their used purchase, which means they will have to come back for the Points card or Online Pass.
Even if this catches on, I'm sure GS will just lower the price of used games by an extra $10 (still making a hefty profit) and save the 2nd hander $5 over a new purchase still.
I can already picture controversy in my head as GS pushes the used EA Sports game w/ Online Pass for $55 (receipt says: $60 game + $10 Online Pass - $10 for Online Pass - $5 for Game), and then when the 2nd hand person comes to return it as it's not what they wanted, GS won't take back the Online Pass and the Extra $5 off was part of the bundle (non of this explained at time of purchase) so now they only refund you $45 so either way they still make $5.
I can also see them trying to sell the online pass with the NEW copy as they misinform every customer that comes into their store.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Louieturkey on May 12, 2010, 03:18:57 PM
What's the difference - the original owner is no longer playing the game online, since they don't have it anymore, and now someone else is playing it instead.
The difference is that if the original buyer is no longer playing the game online, but doesn't sell the game, then it lessens the burden of maintaining the servers. EA can scale back the online service over time as the number of online players declines.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: ejamer on May 12, 2010, 03:21:30 PM
My opinion is probably biased because I don't strongly prefer playing games with friends in the same room, or just going solo... but I think EA's decision is reasonable and justified.
Finding a way to profit from online usage makes sense for everyone. First, it helps the company minimize lost revenue due to piracy and second-hand sales. Second, it allows the company to maintain their own servers - which means they are responsible for the quality of services provided instead of relying on a third party. Third, it should end up reducing the initial cost of software, since companies will only have to charge people who use online features instead of charging everyone who buys the game (of course, this probably won't happen initially since they want everyone to have a "hook" into the online subscription-based model).
People complaining are being unrealistic. Well, they are also just watching out for their own wallets... and you can't blame them for that. But the only people who really stand to lose out here are second-hand sellers since gamers are going to want them to suck up the difference.
Also, it's funny that people who are willing to pay XBLA fees are suddenly standing up and complaining now. It makes no business sense at all to suggest that EA should be required to rely on Microsoft's servers to run their games... and obviously MS agrees since they approved the request.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Louieturkey on May 12, 2010, 03:22:17 PM
Does GS get a nice chunk out of XBLA/PSN Points cards?
Because that is what they would have to sell to used customers so they can buy their Online Pass unless they can sell the Online Pass directly.
My guess is GS will sell the online passes directly and that is why they are touting it highly. They can add it in with all the other service charges they try to push on everyone. Seems like a win-win for them. And if they have to lower the cost of used games by $10, they will just lower the amount they buy those games back from people.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Louieturkey on May 12, 2010, 03:25:43 PM
Finding a way to profit from online usage makes sense for everyone. First, it helps the company minimize lost revenue due to piracy and second-hand sales. Second, it allows the company to maintain their own servers - which means they are responsible for the quality of services provided instead of relying on a third party. Third, it should end up reducing the initial cost of software, since companies will only have to charge people who use online features instead of charging everyone who buys the game (of course, this probably won't happen initially since they want everyone to have a "hook" into the online subscription-based model).
This makes sense. If the people pirating games want to play the game online, they still have to pay EA the online pass fee to be able to play it online. So EA even makes money off of those people as well.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Dirk Temporo on May 12, 2010, 03:28:52 PM
If you seriously support the EA Pass system, or think that big-name companies like them experience any sort of significant detriment from the sale of used games, you're an idiot.
The only developers/publishers that have ANY RIGHT to complain about the used game market are the small ones, whose games typically ONLY get bought used. Not the EA and the Activision who have legions of morons buying every single game they release the day it comes out.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: broodwars on May 12, 2010, 03:31:59 PM
If you seriously support the EA Pass system, or think that big-name companies like them experience any sort of significant detriment from the sale of used games, you're an idiot.
The only developers/publishers that have ANY RIGHT to complain about the used game market are the small ones, whose games typically ONLY get bought used. Not the EA and the Activision who have legions of morons buying every single game they release the day it comes out.
Considering you don't give a legitmate reason there why the Online Pass is a bad thing, I think it's hilarious for you to be calling those who disagree with you "idiots".
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 12, 2010, 03:37:23 PM
Finding a way to profit from online usage makes sense for everyone. First, it helps the company minimize lost revenue due to piracy and second-hand sales. Second, it allows the company to maintain their own servers - which means they are responsible for the quality of services provided instead of relying on a third party. Third, it should end up reducing the initial cost of software, since companies will only have to charge people who use online features instead of charging everyone who buys the game (of course, this probably won't happen initially since they want everyone to have a "hook" into the online subscription-based model).
This makes sense. If the people pirating games want to play the game online, they still have to pay EA the online pass fee to be able to play it online. So EA even makes money off of those people as well.
^^ See I didn't even think of the pirates, that's why this makes even more sense.
We can't stop them from burning copies of the games and modding their systems, but we can block them from playing the game with their friends online.... until they pay up.
Eventually we will be on a OnLive type system and this will be the norm. You can physically go to the store and buy a game, but you can't actually play it until you put in a code that unlocks all the content of the disc which is just a portal to the actual game that is stored on a server somewhere.
I don't want to see that happen in the future, but it looks like that is where we are headed.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: vudu on May 12, 2010, 03:38:26 PM
If you seriously support the EA Pass system, or think that big-name companies like them experience any sort of significant detriment from the sale of used games, you're an idiot.
Please refrain from calling other members idiots.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 12, 2010, 03:41:07 PM
If you seriously support the EA Pass system, or think that big-name companies like them experience any sort of significant detriment from the sale of used games, you're an idiot.
The only developers/publishers that have ANY RIGHT to complain about the used game market are the small ones, whose games typically ONLY get bought used. Not the EA and the Activision who have legions of morons buying every single game they release the day it comes out.
And actually Dirk, I'm not sure all of us think this is specifically to combat used game sales but more to find another avenue of income to support the cost of online gaming. Does it encourage purchases of new games? of course, and that helps even the tiny developers. Does it combat piracy? sure looks like it does. If you check the the online score board of (if forgot the name of the game), there were more online players (about twice as many) than they had sold copies of the game. If they had this system in place, that wouldn't have been an issue. This system helps the small guys too and you'd be an idiot to not see that.
And incase you didn't notice, it's the small developers that need large publishers like EA & Activision to be their voice, otherwise they'll never be heard and these problems will never get fixed. If EA didn't make a move like this and push for it to become some sort of standard, do you think some small indie dev was gonna make it happen?
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: vudu on May 12, 2010, 03:54:41 PM
This system helps the small guys too and you'd be an idiot to not see that.
WHAT DID I JUST SAY?
Next person to call someone an idiot in this thread gets a 3 day ban.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 12, 2010, 03:56:40 PM
Why do you tempt me so.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BranDonk Kong on May 12, 2010, 03:57:21 PM
Yes, it's the small developers who need EA to make more money, that way gamers will have even less left over to buy the small developer's game when they buy used EA games...so they should buy them new instead...and still not have any money left over. Getting a game for $5 less isn't the main reason why people actually pay $55 for used games at GameStop anyway - if you don't like it, they'll give you your money back (within a week). With new games, they'll only buy it back (and sell it used), since Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have made it impossible for consumers to return opened software.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: vudu on May 12, 2010, 03:59:34 PM
Getting a game for $5 less isn't the main reason why people actually pay $55 for used games at GameStop anyway - if you don't like it, they'll give you your money back (within a week). With new games, they'll only buy it back (and sell it used), since Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have made it impossible for consumers to return opened software.
****, I think this may be the first valid, new idea to be brought up in the past 1.5 pages.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: King of Twitch on May 12, 2010, 10:01:04 PM
Ruining online play, ripping off and angering customers, destroying gaming forever, sounds like EA is ready to make its own console.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 12, 2010, 10:12:11 PM
We've been waiting for the announcement for years now.
They are almost ready. They just need a few blockbuster titles that they can milk outside of Madden and Tigerwoods and any other sport, and then they are set.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Ymeegod on May 12, 2010, 10:35:48 PM
READ THIS Did anyone read the article? You might want to double check your facts because EA is suing GS not for selling used copies but selling used games that claim to include everything. EA is bundling new games with exclusive DLC and online pass (TW11) which has an one time use and those who buy an used game has to purchase these extras ($10 fee for TW11 online play).
So it which actually GS that's cheating the customers and that's why EA called them on the lawsuit.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 12, 2010, 10:49:26 PM
READ THIS Did anyone read the article? You might want to double check your facts because EA is suing GS not for selling used copies but selling used games that claim to include everything. EA is bundling new games with exclusive DLC and online pass (TW11) which has an one time use and those who buy an used game has to purchase these extras ($10 fee for TW11 online play).
So it which actually GS that's cheating the customers and that's why EA called them on the lawsuit.
What the hell are you talking about? Electronic Arts is not suing GameStop, I don't know where you think you read that. It's some idiots who are suing GameStop based on what ELECTRONIC ARTS is doing (charging people who buy used copies money to get the Mass Effect 2 DLC). The lawsuit has no merit either because it's EA that is charging customers money for the DLC, not GameStop. GameStop is innocent is this, it's EA that is screwing the customers and it is EA[/i] that should (and hopfully WILL) be on the receiving end of a class action lawsuit over this BS.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Ymeegod on May 12, 2010, 11:21:02 PM
My bad, the lawsuit only listing EA games so I assumed it was an EA suit.
Actually alot of developers have bundled free DLC with purchase to get more sales upfront and to get more people online for future DLC packs. The lawsuit states how GS was cheating the customer because they failed to point out that the vouchers were already used. Basically the guy felt cheated becuase he ended up spending more for a used copy and the DLC then he would have been buying retail.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 12, 2010, 11:32:11 PM
The guy won't win. I am surprised that no one ever sued Activision Blizzard over the Game of the Year Edition of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, they continued selling the GOTY even after they stopped including the code to download the multiplayer maps (which was the only thing that separated it from the regular edition). I have no problems with including bonus content like this as an incentive to buy new (or even what EA did with Army of Two: The 40th Day where they made a online mode exclusive for 30 days to those who pre-ordered it). Making people pay to even play basic online modes is another story. It's even worse because EA only keeps the online servers for their sports games up for 1 or 2 years. For every other publisher (who use Microsoft's servers), you can even play 4 year old sports games if you can find other people online.
GameStop is not to blame for any of this, it is the publishers fault. Hell, if I had the money to hire a lawyer I would try and file a class-action lawsuit myself against EA for this BS move.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 12, 2010, 11:47:50 PM
I think GS is at fault for selling used copies an not pointing out that one-time codes are one-time codes and have already been used while pushing a used sale over a new purchase.
That is misinformation to pad their profit margin and very dishonest to a customer who was likely to spend the extra $5 to buy it new. I hope he does win his case.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: SixthAngel on May 13, 2010, 12:06:35 AM
I can't wait until consumer rights catch up with digital distribution. Its been slow so companies are trying to get away with everything.
Just because it is a download doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to sell it. If I sell my used game I should be able to sell the download as well but EA has some kind of bullshit one time download thing. I'm going to love hearing all these bloated corporations endless bitching when digital downloads are finally give the ability to resell as they should.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 13, 2010, 09:41:57 AM
I think GS is at fault for selling used copies an not pointing out that one-time codes are one-time codes and have already been used while pushing a used sale over a new purchase.
GameStop is not the one advertising the content, EA is. The box even says it is a single use code, it's common sense that if you are buying a USED copy of a game that it will already be registered. It's the same thing if you buy a used copy of a Nintendo game (for Club Nintendo) or buying used DVDs that you can register (like Disney DVDs/Blu-ray Discs). If you find a used copy that has a unused code, great. If not, you took a chance. GmaeStop is not doing anything wrong and they are NOT advertising the code. Would you rather them replace the boxart for every copy of Mass Effect 2 with one of their crappy generic boxes? I know you have a irrational hatred for GameStop, but they are not even slightly to blame here, EA is the only one to blame.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 13, 2010, 11:23:28 AM
I said for GS not pointing it out when pushing a used sale over a New sale, not that GS is advertising one-time codes.
If I was gonna buy a New game and then GS offers me a used one for $5 - $10 cheaper, saying that the used copy has everything the NEW copy does, essentially talking me out of a new purchase, yet fails to mention that I can't use the codes advertised for the game, then that is the fault GS and not EA.
That's how I interpret the situation.
I don't have an irrational hatred for GS BTW. I've never had a really bad experience there. You must be confusing me with all the other people that complain about their personal shopping experiences. I rarely shop at GS since I buy most things game related from Amazon or during a special deal from BB or TRU.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 13, 2010, 11:40:04 AM
GameStop has never claimed that used copies have everything the new ones do, and I don't think they should assume the average shopper is so stupid that they think it does. The only thing GameStop does is say "would you like to save $--- by buying a pre-owned copy of the game?" GameStop never claims the used copy has everything the new copy does, nor do they even mention stuff like downloadable DLC.
You seem to be blaming GameStop for something that is EA's fault. It is EA that put on the box that there is a code for extra content. The only way around this for GameStop would be to put stickers on the box or replace it with one of their generic boxarts (both of which get complaints from gamers).
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 13, 2010, 12:02:53 PM
I am interpreting a story that was posted about someone suing GS for not informing them about the codes/DLC instead of selling them a NEW copy. (http://kotaku.com/5502426/gamestop-hit-with-class-action-suit-over-deceptive-used-game-sales)
Quote from: article
According to a class action suit spotted by IGN (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/107/1079852p1.html), GameStop is being sued for "fraudulently, unfairly, unlawfully and deceptively [misleading] consumers at the time of their purchase to believe that the game comes with free downloadable content, when it fact, it does not." Basically, the suit is being filed over the fact that downloadable content—characters, maps, gameplay modes—are promised on the box, but are not available to second hand buyers, unbeknownst to those consumers.
I made up a scenario where a GS employee pushed a used sale ever a NEW one and you are acting like I am citing an actual event that took place in my own experience. Chill out. It was my interpretation of what might have happened for the guy file a lawsuit. If it's on the box, then I would expect it to be included.
If GS wants to sell a used copy, them maybe they should cover those things up, make a new cover or INFORM the customer that the DLC and codes mentioned may not be available since it is a used copy. If they really want the things mentioned on the box, then perhaps they should purchase a NEW copy. EA doesn't have to take used games and reselling shops into account since they don't sell used games. They package these games up for one NEW purchase off of a store shelf and that is the end of advertising for that individual copy. at the point GS buys the used copy back and puts it on the shelf, they are assuming the responsibility for the content in which they resell. It becomes their burden to inform the customer on what the packaging actually contains and what may not actually be available, otherwise it's kinda false advertising.
They should maybe make their own covers for the game that don't advertise all the things that they can not control or buy back with the game. If gamers wan to complain about it, then they can also have the original cover, which should be placed behind the GS cover, or they can quit being so picky if they are also gonna be cheap and go buy a NEW copy instead.
EA is not at fault for listing on the cover what comes with the game when you buy it NEW, which is the only way EA sells the game.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BranDonk Kong on May 14, 2010, 12:38:04 AM
It's still EA's fault. If you want to blame GameStop (I hate them btw, but I am defending them here) for not pointing out that the DLC is only for the original purchase, you can blame EA for not putting that in the label as well. Sure, EA doesn't sell used games, but their games are sold used, and not just at GameStop, also it's quite possible that the DLC code has never been used before. This lawsuit will be tossed out, or at worst, GameStop will owe a bunch of douchebags $10 (though, yes, GameStop is essentially a giant douchebag as well).
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 14, 2010, 01:08:43 AM
EA doesn't sell used and therefore shouldn't have to plan for used games since they never intend for their games to be sold used.
If someone wants to sell used then it should be their responsibility to inform the buyer that all the extra goodies that originally came with that purchase more than likely no longer apply. It shouldn't have to be printed on the box when the box is meant for the original purchase.
It's just like when a show has a call in contest and winners are gonna be chosen, when it get re-broadcast, they put "previously recorded" and "do not call in" warnings to let people know that this is now longer LIVE and can not longer be participated in.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Plugabugz on May 14, 2010, 09:16:48 AM
EA doesn't sell used and therefore shouldn't have to plan for used games since they never intend for their games to be sold used.
If EA are doing this in response to making no money from used games, then don't sell new games. It's just a way to extract additional revenue because they don't see any of it and they want in on the party.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 14, 2010, 10:43:28 AM
EA is not at fault for listing on the cover what comes with the game when you buy it NEW,
Except that EA does not say that it comes with the game when you buy it new, they just say it comes with game. I can't say whether that on specific employee said the DLC came free with the used copy, but the company does not (and never has) said that. GameStop, as a company, is not even slightly to blame here.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 14, 2010, 12:57:53 PM
EA is not at fault for listing on the cover what comes with the game when you buy it NEW,
Except that EA does not say that it comes with the game when you buy it new, they just say it comes with game.
which is intended to be bought NEW since that is the only way they sell it.
Quote
I can't say whether that on specific employee said the DLC came free with the used copy, but the company does not (and never has) said that. GameStop, as a company, is not even slightly to blame here.
You wouldn't know that as you weren't there and don't know the questions the customer asked the employee. GS employees are known of being very misleading (MH3 demo disc ring any bells - the company was telling employees to force a $5 preorder on a free demo disc) and just generally uninformed, so they may just answer the question in the way the customer wants to hear (which happens all the time in sales, especially retail).
Gamestop is the one to blame (with some small portion to fall on uninformed consumer) since they made the choice to buy back and sell games used. EA relinquishes all fault once the original sale is made, the game is opened and included content is accounted for (whether it's used or not). It really is as simple as that.
GS could avoid it by informing the sales clerk to inform the customer, put up a sign that says all used sales may or may not include DLC or extras from original purchase, or just put in a false cover that GS can print themselves that looks identical to the original cover, just doesn't mention any of the DLC and extra goodies(it can even have a GS logo on it somewhere). That should've been part of their business model from the get-go.
EA doesn't sell used and therefore shouldn't have to plan for used games since they never intend for their games to be sold used.
If EA are doing this in response to making no money from used games, then don't sell new games. It's just a way to extract additional revenue because they don't see any of it and they want in on the party.
Making money from used game sales may be part of it, but I'm sure it's more about making online a self-sustaining feature since servers cost money to run and maintain and if people are gonna continually extend the life of the online portion of a game through used sales to late-comers, then those late-comers should bear part of the burden of running the server, just like the original purchasers did when they bought the game new.
It's business. You can't expect EA to foot the bill for servers out of their own pocket forever just because we want them to. Gaming is a serious and very expensive business and they have to find a way to keep making a profit otherwise you don't end up with new games with new features, better graphics, new gameplay and lagless, seamless online with dedicated servers and always someone to play with across all systems regardless of time of day. It all cost money and it has to come from somewhere.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 14, 2010, 01:38:27 PM
I know I wasn't there, that it why I said the COMPANY has never said that. The employee (if they even said that) is NOT the company.
GameStop does not have any blame in this situation. They are not the ones claiming the discs come with free DLC. It's as simple as that, EA is the one trying force customers to buy new copies.
Again, I already mentioned the fake covers. When they DO put fake covers on, you have people bitching and moaning that they want the original cover (same problem happens if they try and put stickers over the mention of DLC on the box). As for employees, half the time the employees don't have a clue if a game even has DLC (unless they played it themselves) and GameStop has no legal responsibility to tell customers that. No one ever made a fuss about not being able to register used Nintendo games, even though it's the same basic concept.
As for the servers, I again repeat my comment that EA shouldn't try and pass the cost on to consumers. EA CHOSE to run and operate their own servers, so they shouldn't expect us to pay for the servers. EA could just choose to let Microsoft handle it and that would take all of the costs away. If EA chooses to add extra costs for themselves, then that is their own fault and they shouldn't pass the cost onto us.
You don't seem to think EA is to blame at all, do you?
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Louieturkey on May 14, 2010, 01:39:07 PM
I can't wait until consumer rights catch up with digital distribution. Its been slow so companies are trying to get away with everything.
They won't. Just look at when people hire contractors to remodel their homes. If it's done bad, they still have to pay. If it's never finished, the contractor gets away with it and the only answer is a civil suit which costs more than the remodel. Consumer rights are even harder to define. Companies will always have more rights than individuals in these cases.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Louieturkey on May 14, 2010, 02:37:40 PM
As for the servers, I again repeat my comment that EA shouldn't try and pass the cost on to consumers. EA CHOSE to run and operate their own servers, so they shouldn't expect us to pay for the servers. EA could just choose to let Microsoft handle it and that would take all of the costs away. If EA chooses to add extra costs for themselves, then that is their own fault and they shouldn't pass the cost onto us.
You realize they have to run their own servers anyways for the PS3 and Wii. So it never takes all the costs away. My guess is they just decided if they have to run them on one console, might as well do it on the others as well.
Quote
You don't seem to think EA is to blame at all, do you?
If it's EA's fault then they should get a piece of the used pie.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Louieturkey on May 14, 2010, 02:41:39 PM
Making money from used game sales may be part of it, but I'm sure it's more about making online a self-sustaining feature since servers cost money to run and maintain and if people are gonna continually extend the life of the online portion of a game through used sales to late-comers, then those late-comers should bear part of the burden of running the server, just like the original purchasers did when they bought the game new.
One thing I'm concerned about with this is that if they are taking the extra money, then if someone buys a $10 online pass, that pass should be for however long they choose. So that means that EA needs to keep running the servers on that game until nobody is playing it online anymore. The moment they turn off the TW11 servers will be the telling moment on if this will bite them in the butt or if it really was successful.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Dirk Temporo on May 14, 2010, 03:16:52 PM
Considering you don't give a legitmate reason there why the Online Pass is a bad thing
Do I really have to spoon-feed you a "legitimate" reason as to why we, the consumers, should not be charged extra money in order to take advantage of features that were not only present in the game when we purchased it, but were also developed alongside the game as part of an inseperable package?
Does it encourage purchases of new games? of course, and that helps even the tiny developers.
That might be true if tiny developers ever made online games or if they did, implemented this system, which they won't, because nobody getting games from tiny developers is going to pay extra to "unlock" something that they have every right to already have access to at the time of purchase. The only people who are going to buy into this crap are the people playing all the huge-name mainstream games like Call of Duty, because they're not educated enough and are always willing to surrender their rights as consumers.
Quote
If you check the the online score board of (if forgot the name of the game), there were more online players (about twice as many) than they had sold copies of the game. If they had this system in place, that wouldn't have been an issue. This system helps the small guys too and you'd be an idiot to not see that.
Well given that you can't give me the name of the game or the name of the developer at least, that's a pretty useless piece of anecdotal evidence. However, "online scoreboards" are not the same thing as online multiplayer, which is what the discussion is about. And if you honestly think that ANYBODY ANYWHERE is going to pay extra money just to have access to leaderboards, you're deluding yourself.
Quote
And incase you didn't notice, it's the small developers that need large publishers like EA & Activision to be their voice, otherwise they'll never be heard and these problems will never get fixed. If EA didn't make a move like this and push for it to become some sort of standard, do you think some small indie dev was gonna make it happen?
Like I said, this might be pertinent if this pass system had any forseeable bearing on small developers at all. None of them are ever going to implement this system for the simple fact that nobody is going to pay EXTRA MONEY to get a basic feature in an indie game.
I don't seem to be able to stress the EXTRA MONEY part of this enough to you guys.
EA doesn't sell used and therefore shouldn't have to plan for used games since they never intend for their games to be sold used.
Funny, because last I checked, EVERY SINGLE MATERIAL PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD has to plan for used sales.
You know, when I buy a used car and it says it comes with power windows, I am typically accustomed to driving the car and being able to put all the windows down, and not having to pay Ford extra to unlock it because I didn't buy it new.
Quote
Making money from used game sales may be part of it, but I'm sure it's more about making online a self-sustaining feature since servers cost money to run and maintain...You can't expect EA to foot the bill for servers out of their own pocket forever just because we want them to. Gaming is a serious and very expensive business and they have to find a way to keep making a profit
Everything you say on this subject makes it sound as though EA is in HORRIBLE AND IMMEDIATE DANGER of going out of business unless they take IMMEDIATE ACTION to put extra padding in their already infinitely deep coffers.
Quote
It all cost money and it has to come from somewhere.
Yeah, how about the ungodly amounts of cash they rake in every single time they release a game?
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 14, 2010, 03:27:02 PM
Making money from used game sales may be part of it, but I'm sure it's more about making online a self-sustaining feature since servers cost money to run and maintain and if people are gonna continually extend the life of the online portion of a game through used sales to late-comers, then those late-comers should bear part of the burden of running the server, just like the original purchasers did when they bought the game new.
One thing I'm concerned about with this is that if they are taking the extra money, then if someone buys a $10 online pass, that pass should be for however long they choose. So that means that EA needs to keep running the servers on that game until nobody is playing it online anymore. The moment they turn off the TW11 servers will be the telling moment on if this will bite them in the butt or if it really was successful.
This I do agree with. If you are gonna charge additional for online access to 2nd hand games, then the servers have to stay up and running till there are just not enough people playing to justify it's existence anymore.
TJ, you live in a bubble. In the real world business is business. everything is done for money. If you feel it's EA's fault that another company wants to buy back their old software to resell it, but can't be bothered to say that the goodies that come with it new are not available used, then you probably need to get out into the real world for a moment and out of those books.
That would be like blaming Toyota because a reseller that rebulit the engine on used toyota that now failed to work, won't service the engine under some sort of Toyota dealership warranty. How is it Toyota's fault that your car don't work when you didn't buy it new from a Toyota dealership? It's not their problem anymore. You have to complain to the person that sold it to you used and have them fix it.
and as far as the servers issue goes..... if you still don't get it, then I've seriously wasted too much time talking to you about this. I don't know if you have a job or not, but would you let someone else do part of your job of you and then be perfectly happy when they collect your bonus and your raises? EA is a giant company and..... nevermind. I've already explained it. Go read it again or ask someone else. I'm done.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 14, 2010, 03:52:29 PM
Considering you don't give a legitmate reason there why the Online Pass is a bad thing
Do I really have to spoon-feed you a "legitimate" reason as to why we, the consumers, should not be charged extra money in order to take advantage of features that were not only present in the game when we purchased it, but were also developed alongside the game as part of an inseperable package?
But it is separate, that is why you need to connect to the servers to use it.
Does it encourage purchases of new games? of course, and that helps even the tiny developers.
That might be true if tiny developers ever made online games or if they did, implemented this system, which they won't, because nobody getting games from tiny developers is going to pay extra to "unlock" something that they have every right to already have access to at the time of purchase. The only people who are going to buy into this crap are the people playing all the huge-name mainstream games like Call of Duty, because they're not educated enough and are always willing to surrender their rights as consumers.
You seem to forget that this is for 2nd hand games, not games that you bought directly from the developer/publisher or new from the store. Access is part of the initial purchase price.
Quote
Quote
If you check the the online score board of (if forgot the name of the game), there were more online players (about twice as many) than they had sold copies of the game. If they had this system in place, that wouldn't have been an issue. This system helps the small guys too and you'd be an idiot to not see that.
Well given that you can't give me the name of the game or the name of the developer at least, that's a pretty useless piece of anecdotal evidence. However, "online scoreboards" are not the same thing as online multiplayer, which is what the discussion is about. And if you honestly think that ANYBODY ANYWHERE is going to pay extra money just to have access to leaderboards, you're deluding yourself.
I wish I could remember the name of the game, but the point was that there are more people playing the game than people that have bought it(specifically NEW). That is a problem, so if you legitimately bought the game, it would cost you no extra. If you borrowed and installed someone elses copy, you have to pay to get the online access, if you downloaded it off some torrent site, then you need to pay to get the online access. You can't prevent people from selling/stealing/borrowing/copying the content on the disc, so you control the online aspect the best you can by charging to access it if you didn't support the game with a new purchase.
Quote
Quote
And incase you didn't notice, it's the small developers that need large publishers like EA & Activision to be their voice, otherwise they'll never be heard and these problems will never get fixed. If EA didn't make a move like this and push for it to become some sort of standard, do you think some small indie dev was gonna make it happen?
Like I said, this might be pertinent if this pass system had any forseeable bearing on small developers at all. None of them are ever going to implement this system for the simple fact that nobody is going to pay EXTRA MONEY to get a basic feature in an indie game.
I don't seem to be able to stress the EXTRA MONEY part of this enough to you guys.
EXTRA UNNECESSARY ADDITIONAL
see my previous reply. THERE IS NO EXTRA UNNECESSARY ADDITIONAL COST IF YOU BOUGHT THE GAME NEW. this only applies to those that did not support the product with a new purchase (which doesn't even mean at full price)
EA doesn't sell used and therefore shouldn't have to plan for used games since they never intend for their games to be sold used.
Funny, because last I checked, EVERY SINGLE MATERIAL PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD has to plan for used sales.
You know, when I buy a used car and it says it comes with power windows, I am typically accustomed to driving the car and being able to put all the windows down, and not having to pay Ford extra to unlock it because I didn't buy it new.
Yet another flawed car analogy. You buy the disc, everything that is accessable on it is yours. the game, the options, the local multiplayer all yours. Keep it, sell it, destroy it, whatever.
You want to access the servers for multiplayer online play. well that only cost you money if you didn't buy it new.
You buy a car, everything physical about the car is yours. The engine, the seats, the sunroof, the radio, the tires & rims. All yours.
But if you want access to the XM radio that came in the car.... well now you have to pay for that since that is an extra feature(1st year free with new purchase) that has additional cost outside of the purchase of the car. You want to use that OnStar button(1st year free with NEW purchase), well you're gonna have to come outta pocket for that too. You want that free carwash, free oil change and routine maintenance with the free gas for a year bonus!? then buy the car NEW from the dealership and you can have all that too(if those are extras they offer).
you can't expect all that thrown in to the used purchase just because it's advertised in the new purchase. That just doesn't make sense, from a logic sense nor a business sense.
Quote
Quote
Making money from used game sales may be part of it, but I'm sure it's more about making online a self-sustaining feature since servers cost money to run and maintain...You can't expect EA to foot the bill for servers out of their own pocket forever just because we want them to. Gaming is a serious and very expensive business and they have to find a way to keep making a profit
Everything you say on this subject makes it sound as though EA is in HORRIBLE AND IMMEDIATE DANGER of going out of business unless they take IMMEDIATE ACTION to put extra padding in their already infinitely deep coffers.
Quote
It all cost money and it has to come from somewhere.
Yeah, how about the ungodly amounts of cash they rake in every single time they release a game?
They are a business and that's called profit. you know.... the whole reason they are in this business. It's to make profit. I don't see anyone complaining about Nintendo not giving us free NDS & Wii's or Apple not giving away free iPhone & iPad since they have made BILLIONS of $$$$$ on us over the last decade. They have so much money, why can't they just give us free stuff because they can afford it. boo hoo.
here's a tissue, but you gotta find a different shoulder to cry on.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 14, 2010, 03:57:01 PM
Regarding your first point, Dirk already pointed out the flaw in your argument. Your whole example is nonsense.
I know your point about the servers, you don't seem to understand the basic idea though. You think it's justified for EA to pass on the costs on running servers when they CHOOSE to take on that cost? Here is a very SIMPLE analogy. If I were to work for a delivery company and the company offered to pay for stuff like gas and other expenses, that is like what Microsoft can for EA. The other option is I pay for those costs myself and get to charge customers a extra fee to make up for the costs I CHOSE to incur, that is what EA is doing.
It also boggles me that you can't even admit that EA bears at least some of the blame (to me it seems clear that most of the blame is on them and it's only a matter of time before they face a lawsuit for it).
This whole conversation has gotten me thinking, why has no one sued game companies that charge you for access to content already on the disc? There are a lot of DLC content that costs money but is nothing more than a key that unlocks the content already on the physical disc.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 14, 2010, 04:12:49 PM
Regarding your first point, Dirk already pointed out the flaw in your argument. Your whole example is nonsense.
I know your point about the servers, you don't seem to understand the basic idea though. You think it's justified for EA to pass on the costs on running servers when they CHOOSE to take on that cost? Here is a very SIMPLE analogy. If I were to work for a delivery company and the company offered to pay for stuff like gas and other expenses, that is like what Microsoft can for EA. The other option is I pay for those costs myself and get to charge customers a extra fee to make up for the costs I CHOSE to incur, that is what EA is doing.
It also boggles me that you can't even admit that EA bears at least some of the blame (to me it seems clear that most of the blame is on them and it's only a matter of time before they face a lawsuit for it).
Here is what you still don't get. Why would that company pay for your gas?
Because they are taking part of your profits, you are driving their truck and/or your truck is tied to their company. You never get something for nothing..... ever. Rules of the real world. You always have to give something to get something. You don't buy new, you pay for access. You don't want to pay for access, then you can still play the game, but you can only do it locally. No server access = no online. simple as that.
Quote
This whole conversation has gotten me thinking, why has no one sued game companies that charge you for access to content already on the disc? There are a lot of DLC content that costs money but is nothing more than a key that unlocks the content already on the physical disc.
My guess is because they have already established that we don't actually own the data on the disc so it doesn't matter what they put on there. By purchasing the game we are now licensed to access the parts of the game they want us to play.
You own the disc, bit not the content on it. As long as you own that disc, and a means to play that disc, then you are free to use the contents of said disc. I don't agree with that, but I believe that is the current standing of the situation.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on May 14, 2010, 05:12:51 PM
My guess is because they have already established that we don't actually own the data on the disc so it doesn't matter what they put on there. By purchasing the game we are now licensed to access the parts of the game they want us to play.
You own the disc, bit not the content on it. As long as you own that disc, and a means to play that disc, then you are free to use the contents of said disc. I don't agree with that, but I believe that is the current standing of the situation.
That didn't save Rockstar and Take-Two during the Hot Coffee incident. A class action lawsuit probably could put an end to the on-disc DLC nonsense, but it would probably take a particularly grievous example to kickstart.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 14, 2010, 05:16:04 PM
Then they just wouldn't put it on the disc anymore. Now you have to connect online and download it.... as long as those servers are still active.
Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.
edit:
I also want to clarify to everyone that I am not defending what EA is doing because it's what I want, I am also not blaming GS because I have some imaginary grudge against them. I was simply explaining that what EA is doing makes sense. And even though it doesn't affect me personally, I understand the reasoning behind it and need for it to be done.
As for the whole GS side of the debate..... well if you can't see whats wrong with a second hand seller putting something on the shelf that advertises something that's not in the box and not informing the person who thinks that's what they're getting that that may not infact be what they are getting.... then I just don't know what else to say.
to use the car analogy again; if you buy a used car and you know it has power windows and power everything, they tell you that the power windows aren't working before you buy it. The same courtesy could be had at retail when purchasing a used game. The main difference is that you get to test out a car before you buy it so you would know whats working and whats not. You don't get that privilege with a videogame. You buy now, test later, then have to find the time to return it if it's not what you were expecting.... assuming you tested in time to return it.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Louieturkey on May 18, 2010, 01:31:43 AM
I know your point about the servers, you don't seem to understand the basic idea though. You think it's justified for EA to pass on the costs on running servers when they CHOOSE to take on that cost? Here is a very SIMPLE analogy. If I were to work for a delivery company and the company offered to pay for stuff like gas and other expenses, that is like what Microsoft can for EA. The other option is I pay for those costs myself and get to charge customers a extra fee to make up for the costs I CHOSE to incur, that is what EA is doing.
Again you aren't getting the point that there is another online platform that EA develops for (PS3) and M$ will not run those servers. So instead of punishing people who buy the PS3 version (which would be worse than this in the backlash), they choose to run the servers for all the systems. Why pay M$ to do something and still pay to run servers for other systems when you can do it all yourself and possibly make a profit?
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Ymeegod on May 21, 2010, 09:32:17 PM
Not sure if this was stated but EA is giving you a free 7 day trial so you can try the MP while you rent which is all I wanted. THQ plan is to charge $5.00 a pop regardless if you rent or not. Bleh.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 21, 2010, 10:56:30 PM
edit: looks like that's already been taken care of (http://www.easports.com/onlinepass)
Quote from: EA Q&A
Do I need an unique Online Pass for every user on my console? No. One Online Pass will give online access to multiple users logged into the console where the Online Pass was first activated (subject to the console manufacturer’s and EA online terms of service).
Also, the user that activated the Online Pass will be allowed to access online features on other consoles (of the same manufacturer) by logging into the same account credentials that they used when they enabled the Online Pass.
p.s. I also wonder what they are gonna do for rental places. $3 added to rental price for 5 day online pass?
wonder how this affects Gamefly and the already sinking Blockbuster if it takes off.
edit2: I guess this question has been answered too.
Quote from: EA Q&A
Do I need to purchase an Online Pass when I rent a game? Each Xbox LIVE gamertag or Sony PSN ID is entitled to a free 7 day trial per title. Beyond that, users will be required to redeem or purchase Online Pass access.
^^^bottom quote right there.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: ThePerm on May 22, 2010, 02:45:20 PM
as far as the separable content online passport thingy. EA does not want to sell to people that don't keep their end of the bargain. You buy something, than you own it forever! I rarely buy used anything, and I've never sold any of my games. Thats what Nintendo gets, that is what EA wants.
It does a company no good to have to be constantly undercut and competed with their own previous sales. Some could make the existing used goods like used car argument, but cars cost thousands of dollars and the profit margins are different. You know there have only been 1.5 million corvettes made since 1953? It costs 8 million(very very conservatively) dollars for a large company to make a game, which at $49.99 hopefully sales at least 160,000 copies to break even. Breaking even doesn't provide continuity of operation + profit(IE executive pay). 400,000 would be the number for an 8 million dollar game, but EA games probably cost upwards of 30 million to make meaning to break even they need to sale 600,000, and 1,500,000 to be good for the future of the company. At any time they are making 10-20 games, and some are hits and misses, so they need x number of hits to cover huge losses by y number of misses. It doesn't help when your competing with yourself because of gamestop. Used games undercutting could destroy a billion dollar company on a bad year.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: that Baby guy on May 22, 2010, 04:30:16 PM
Doesn't that just go to show there's production and pricing problems in the game industry? Used game do "hurt" publishers, but the fact gamers can go and sell their used games does encourage them to buy more games, too.
I'd say what Namco seems to be saying: We'd be better off with generally shorter and cheaper games, with pricing schemes that fit the individual title, and not the whole platform. There's no reason a game has to be a $60, 40 hour epic, when you can buy four $15, 10 hour episodes instead, and it would be a lot more approachable for many to try out and get a feel for a game in the first installment. Not to mention, we seem to have reached a new point in developers artificially lengthening their games, which is just lame. Maybe a change like this would discourage that?
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 22, 2010, 08:40:04 PM
Or the publishers will be looking to the hardware makers to include sizeable HDD next time around so that more software can be DD only and completely bypass the B&M store and Used sales altogether.
But a pricing scheme that fits the game would also be good.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 22, 2010, 09:39:10 PM
Digital distribution only is a terrible model that hurts consumers. Prices will never go down unless the publisher wants them too, people have no way of selling games they no longer want, and a lot of people either live in areas where fast broadband isn't available or they have a cap on download limits. To go a little further on each:
Right now, retailers have the choice to choose whatever they want on a game. If a store wants to charge $3 for Super Mario Galaxy 2, they can. The store will be losing about $40 (as stores typically pay the publishers about $42 or so for a new $50,, so they make a very small profit), but they are free to do it. With digital games, only the company who runs the download service can lower the price. Valve is an example of greed here. Despite the fact that they save money by not having to manufacture discs/boxes/booklets, etc., pay for shipping, or share revenue with retailers, games on Steam would frequently cost the same as retail versions of the game.
If someone doesn't like a game or they get bored of it, they legally have the right to sell it. With downloaded games, you lose that ability due to the fact that technically you are just downloading a license to play the game. If someone gets bored with a game, don't like it, or are done with it and no longer plan to ever play it again, they are screwed if they had to download it. What happens if someone knows that they are only gonna play the game a few days? They won't be able to rent it or borrow it from a friend, they would have to pay full price and then be stuck with a game that they no longer want and no way to get back any money by selling or trading it in.
In many parts of the US (and more so in other countries), there are many parts of the country where fast broadband isn't available. They only have satellite Internet (which is slow) or dial-up. This makes downloading even something as small as a WiiWare game take well over an hour to download, and downloading something like Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots is not practical since it would take days to download. A lot of people also have a cap on how much they can download. Setting aside the fact that this cap would also include TV shows, movies, music, etc., this cap would restrict how many games they could buy. Even if they used their whole monthly cap on games, that still limits how many games they could even potentially download, so publishers would lose potential sales. You could try and compare this to iTunes, but video games are much larger in size and this makes it less practical than the iTunes solution of going somewhere to download files and then transferring them to your computer when you get home.
If publishers want to increase new sales, there are plenty of better methods. First, do something like Disney does and let people register your game by logging online with it (with Disney DVDs and Blu-ray Discs, if you put them in your computer and then click on a link on the disc, you register than specific disc to your account) or even do it the old-fashioned way like Nintendo does with a slip of paper and registration code. Then offer exclusive DLC (like extra cars in racing games, NOT stuff that was gonna be in the game but the publisher kept it out to sell it like how EA Sports decided to start selling throwback jerseys as DLC despite having included them for free for years) to people who register their game. Another thing to do would be to lower the prices, there is no reason for a standard Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 game to be $60, especially sports games since they feature tons of advertising that provides free revenue to the publisher. More and more people (especially Xbox 360 gamers) wait for a game to drop in price before buying it. For example, about 75% of the copies of Psychonauts sold were after it became budget priced.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Adrock on May 23, 2010, 12:05:16 AM
What happens if someone knows that they are only gonna play the game a few days?
If people know they are only going to play a game for a few days, they clearly know the consequences. They would have to pay full price, but the choice is theirs to make. No one is forcing them to make that purchase so it's not fair to displace blame in this instance. Same goes for DLC. I refuse to pay for DLC because I think the entire concept is bullsh*t. Most paid DLC I either can live without or think should have been included. I've yet to purchase any DLC because I understand the risk. If the new content is stupid or if I trade-in the game, I know I can't trade back the extra content. That would be no one's fault but my own. That's on me.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: UncleBob on May 23, 2010, 12:26:35 AM
TJ brings up a good point.
One of the complaints is that it's not fair that EA is trying to devalue the second-hand game market by making used games worth less (not worthless, mind you)...
So, when EA issues markdowns for retailers to make universal price cuts on games, the same thing happens - used copies of the games are now worth less than they were before.
Does this mean that EA should never, ever, ever cut the price on new copies of their games because it will make the used copies worth less to those who want to resell them?
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Guitar Smasher on May 23, 2010, 01:06:55 AM
Don't be ridiculous. Markdowns are expected, and are a function of supply and demand. This is the market working naturally, whereas removing online from used copies is EA trying to artificially increase the demand for new games.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 23, 2010, 02:52:08 AM
^which is the only market they are interested in.
and the market of making everyone who plays their games a direct customer.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: UncleBob on May 23, 2010, 09:39:06 AM
Don't be ridiculous. Markdowns are expected, and are a function of supply and demand. This is the market working naturally, whereas removing online from used copies is EA trying to artificially increase the demand for new games.
You don't think it's natural for a company to try to make their product more appealing?
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Mop it up on May 23, 2010, 03:16:23 PM
Except it doesn't make their product more appealing, it makes the used product less appealing.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 23, 2010, 03:19:47 PM
^ which makes you more likely to buy the new version.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Mop it up on May 23, 2010, 03:22:41 PM
Or skip it entirely.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 23, 2010, 03:34:19 PM
either way you weren't EA's customer, so why would they care?
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Mop it up on May 23, 2010, 03:36:54 PM
Why do they care about used games? Who knows.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 23, 2010, 03:46:49 PM
Because someone buying a used copy can buy DLC (I know several people who buy used games and have paid for DLC), someone who skips the game entirely due to this moronic practice means there is zero chance of the publisher getting money from them.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Guitar Smasher on May 23, 2010, 03:49:53 PM
^ which makes you more likely to buy the new version.
Look BNM I understand your point - EA wants to make more money, so stop acting like it's going over our heads. What I object to is the fact that consumers are losing value. But hey, if it's all about profits let's go back to the days of Nintendo's monopoly and let's make it all direct distribution with one-time dls only... and let's make our consoles breakdown after a year so consumers have to buy new.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Louieturkey on May 25, 2010, 02:41:09 PM
Does this mean that EA should never, ever, ever cut the price on new copies of their games because it will make the used copies worth less to those who want to resell them?
It's what Nintendo does. They never lower the price of their games. Super Mario 64 DS is still $29.99 srp and still is a top seller for them every year. If EA could get their games to do the same thing, they'd never lower their prices either.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Louieturkey on May 25, 2010, 02:44:14 PM
Because someone buying a used copy can buy DLC (I know several people who buy used games and have paid for DLC), someone who skips the game entirely due to this moronic practice means there is zero chance of the publisher getting money from them.
Now this is definitely a logical deterrent to doing this practice. But since I'm guessing most people who buy used games are less likely to buy dlc for said game, they decided this was an acceptable loss.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on May 25, 2010, 06:59:45 PM
Does this mean that EA should never, ever, ever cut the price on new copies of their games because it will make the used copies worth less to those who want to resell them?
It's what Nintendo does. They never lower the price of their games. Super Mario 64 DS is still $29.99 srp and still is a top seller for them every year. If EA could get their games to do the same thing, they'd never lower their prices either.
Well, $29.99 is $5 less than what it was back when it was first released back in November 2004. That's almost 6 years ago though, so it should have fallen a lot more than that but at least it fell somewhat.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Louieturkey on May 26, 2010, 03:42:13 PM
Does this mean that EA should never, ever, ever cut the price on new copies of their games because it will make the used copies worth less to those who want to resell them?
It's what Nintendo does. They never lower the price of their games. Super Mario 64 DS is still $29.99 srp and still is a top seller for them every year. If EA could get their games to do the same thing, they'd never lower their prices either.
Well, $29.99 is $5 less than what it was back when it was first released back in November 2004. That's almost 6 years ago though, so it should have fallen a lot more than that but at least it fell somewhat.
Well, Mario Kart DS has kept its same price. How long ago did it release? Of course it's still getting into the top 10 monthly console charts so it's an anomaly in itself.
There's only been a couple of 1st party Wii games that have dropped at all though.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Mop it up on May 26, 2010, 11:15:59 PM
Which Nintendo-published Wii games have had official price cuts? I've found plenty on retail specials before but I don't recall hearing about any permanent price reductions.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on May 27, 2010, 02:35:17 AM
Nintendo may never cut the price of their games, but the price does go down in terms of buying them used. That's something Nintendo has no real control over, and the price will drop because as time passes people will get bored of their games (be they A++ titles or not) and will sell them or trade them so the price does drop in that sense.
Title: Re: Nintendo may charge for online?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on May 27, 2010, 02:36:07 AM
