Topic: Nintendo may charge for online?

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

[TJ Spyke]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

[NWR_insanolord]

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.

[Guitar Smasher]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

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?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

"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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

"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?

[BlackNMild2k1]

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
Just 3 full quotes from the link. click through for more

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...

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.

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.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

I want to setup my own private Pro Server for Casual Non-gamers.

It'll be free.

[BranDonk Kong]

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.

[Chozo Ghost]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I believe it would only be relevant to Companies that have games that they maintain dedicated servers for.

[broodwars]

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).

[Stogi]

how about they make a game that doesn't suck so people don't feel the need to sell it back.

problem solved.

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

[Louieturkey]

I believe it would only be relevant to Companies that have games that they maintain dedicated servers for.

Suck as Activision and all their COD games.  I could see them adding this type of thing into Black Ops.

[UltimatePartyBear]

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.

[ejamer]

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.

[Louieturkey]

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.

[Louieturkey]

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.

[Dirk Temporo]

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.

[broodwars]

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".

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.