Topic: Nintendo may charge for online?

[vudu]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

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?

[vudu]

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.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Why do you tempt me so.

[BranDonk Kong]

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.

[vudu]

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.

[King of Twitch]

Ruining online play, ripping off and angering customers, destroying gaming forever, sounds like EA is ready to make its own console.

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

[Ymeegod]

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.

[TJ Spyke]

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.

[Ymeegod]

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. 

[TJ Spyke]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

[SixthAngel]

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.

[TJ Spyke]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

[TJ Spyke]

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).

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

According to a class action suit spotted by IGN, 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.

[BranDonk Kong]

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).

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

[Plugabugz]

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.

[TJ Spyke]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

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.

[TJ Spyke]

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?

[Louieturkey]

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.