Topic: Nintendo may charge for online?

[Louieturkey]

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.

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.

[Louieturkey]

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.

[Dirk Temporo]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[TJ Spyke]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

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.

[UltimatePartyBear]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

[Louieturkey]

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?

[Ymeegod]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

It's been mentioned

edit: looks like that's already been taken care of

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.

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.

[ThePerm]

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.

[that Baby guy]

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?

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

[TJ Spyke]

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.

[Adrock]

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.

[UncleBob]

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?

[Guitar Smasher]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

^which is the only market they are interested in.

and the market of making everyone who plays their games a direct customer.

[UncleBob]

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?

[Mop it up]

Except it doesn't make their product more appealing, it makes the used product less appealing.

[BlackNMild2k1]

^ which makes you more likely to buy the new version.

[Mop it up]

Or skip it entirely.

[BlackNMild2k1]

either way you weren't EA's customer, so why would they care?