Gaming Forums => General Gaming => Topic started by: ControlerFleX on May 19, 2010, 05:46:02 AM
Title: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: ControlerFleX on May 19, 2010, 05:46:02 AM
On the PS3 and Xbox 360 beginning in June with Tiger Woods PGA TOUR 11, EA Sports launches Online Pass.
This means if you buy your Madden day 1, you are unaffected and will enter the one time use code that comes in the box, but those late adaptors that want to get that 5 dolla discount at GameStop will have to acquire this code via your online network(Live/PSN).
Which would mean you'll actually pay 64.99 instead of 59.99 unless GameStop makes a special adjustment to their EA Sports titles. And you can be sure that the GameStop EA Sports current year titles wont go down till the next year's game is on the shelf but that 10 dolla stipend will still exist to get on the server. Andrew Wilson the Senior VP of World Wide Development answered a few questions here (http://www.easports.com/news/item/file/Online_Pass_Questions_Answered)
Now I think this is a good move for ANY publisher, let's not scowl because its EA. This way with all of those second hand purchases, if you want the online stuff and use the server that Costs Money to keep em' running you gotta pay to get in......
I think XBOX 360 owners that likes the used market for these games might wanna flip out because they already pay for online service and now they gotta pay sum mo!!
What about the Wii? Is that online audience not worth charging :@ , (I'm offended) Will the "ever so courteous" GameStop employees warn un-knowing mothers of this??(ppffftt)
But will this turn into a bigger problem/"solution"????? Will Capcom begin to charge with their online titles, starting with.....hmmm Marvel vs. Capcom 3??? Activision not allowing online bands in Guitar Hero 58............
What say you NWR???
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Stratos on May 19, 2010, 07:42:10 AM
I've always been against extra charges for online. It's why I refuse to pay for an MMO or XBox Live.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 19, 2010, 08:31:06 AM
This is pretty old news actually, we've known about this for over a week (although it was in the thread about Nintendo considering online fees).
A certain user i've been arguing with thinks this is a good idea for some reason (and that GameStop is somehow legally responsible for EA charging people for the DLC in Mass Effect if they bought the game used). I think it's a crap idea and is just a way for EA to try and wring more money out of customers (like when they started charging money for stuff that used to be included free in their games, like old uniforms in the Madden games). I don't think it has squat to do with online server costs or they would have done this years ago, they just want more money. Remember, this is the same company that charged $60 for a interactive commercial with some boxing included (I am referring to Fight Night Round 2, which had ads after every punch practically).
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 19, 2010, 10:43:21 AM
If you didn't buy it new, you were never EA's customer.
If you did buy it new, then this news doesn't affect you.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: UncleBob on May 19, 2010, 11:27:06 AM
If you didn't buy it new, you were never EA's customer.
If you did buy it new, then this news doesn't affect you.
You know, this pretty much sums up how I feel about the situation. I've been pretty quiet on it because I didn't really know how to use words to express what I thought about it - but this is it.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 19, 2010, 12:05:40 PM
EA knows these TigerHD versions would tank without Motion Plus. Gotta squeeze more money out of all these idiots before they announce TigerHD Move and TigerHD Natal, brand new expensive Waggle PlusHD disasters.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: broodwars on May 19, 2010, 12:16:09 PM
EA knows these TigerHD versions would tank without Motion Plus. Gotta squeeze more money out of all these idiots before they announce TigerHD Move and TigerHD Natal, brand new expensive Waggle PlusHD disasters.
*laughs*
Somehow I don't think that'll be necessary. Unlike the Wii, they can just patch that functionality into their current versions.
As for the Online Pass, it doesn't bother me. I don't play EA Sports games in the first place, much less online. It's EA offering an incentive for people to actually pay them for buying their product. Whatever. I'm a little more concerned with how eager Ubisoft seems to be eyeing this idea, since their stuff is usually offline.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: broodwars on May 19, 2010, 12:30:17 PM
A certain user i've been arguing with thinks this is a good idea for some reason (and that GameStop is somehow legally responsible for EA charging people for the DLC in Mass Effect if they bought the game used).
Alright, why then is EA responsible in that situation, given that the only sale EA has any control over is the original one when the game was New? Why should EA offer to non-paying customers the DLC they gave away to paying customers?
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 19, 2010, 12:35:53 PM
A certain user i've been arguing with thinks this is a good idea for some reason (and that GameStop is somehow legally responsible for EA charging people for the DLC in Mass Effect if they bought the game used).
Alright, why then is EA responsible in that situation, given that the only sale EA has any control over is the original one when the game was New? Why should EA offer to non-paying customers the DLC they gave away to paying customers?
EA is advertising on the box that the game comes with free DLC. Personally, my problem is that the lawsuit is against GameStop. I think the lawsuit is ridiculous anyways, but the customer was stupid enough to think it was GameStop's fault that EA charges a fee for people to get the DLC.
Charging for DLC is one thing, but charging to get to play it online too? That may technically be legal, but it's low. A person buying a used copy (or borrowing it from a friend, or renting it, etc.) has every right to get the same features. There is also the factor that EA shuts down their servers after a year or two. What happened if someone buys a used copy next year, pays this ridiculous $10 fee, and then EA shuts down the server the next week? This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 19, 2010, 12:37:42 PM
"Somehow I don't think that'll be necessary. Unlike the Wii, they can just patch that functionality into their current versions."
Maybe, but you have to consider any patches on old/outdated/used/discounted software would cut into the sales of the NEXT annual version that would've touted the "patched" features as "real" features. EA will have none of that!
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: UncleBob on May 19, 2010, 12:51:41 PM
EA is advertising on the box that the game comes with free DLC. Personally, my problem is that the lawsuit is against GameStop. I think the lawsuit is ridiculous anyways, but the customer was stupid enough to think it was GameStop's fault that EA charges a fee for people to get the DLC.
I bought a boxed Super Nintendo at a yardsale once. The box said it included Super Mario World. Do I sue Nintendo or the person having the yardsale because it wasn't in the box?
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: broodwars on May 19, 2010, 12:53:06 PM
Maybe, but you have to consider any patches on old/outdated/used/discounted software would cut into the sales of the NEXT annual version that would've touted the "patched" features as "real" features. EA will have none of that!
You'd think so, wouldn't you? Of course, I wouldn't discount that Sony needs big name Move software at the Move's launch, and next year's version of etc. sports titles won't be ready yet. We know at least on Sony's side (I believe there was announcement on this a few months back), they're going to have a patch to put Move functionality into Heavy Rain, so I wouldn't discount it from EA.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 19, 2010, 01:01:01 PM
EA is advertising on the box that the game comes with free DLC. Personally, my problem is that the lawsuit is against GameStop. I think the lawsuit is ridiculous anyways, but the customer was stupid enough to think it was GameStop's fault that EA charges a fee for people to get the DLC.
I bought a boxed Super Nintendo at a yardsale once. The box said it included Super Mario World. Do I sue Nintendo or the person having the yardsale because it wasn't in the box?
No, but you wouldn't sue the person doing the yardsale either (which is basically what this idiot suing GameStop is doing).
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: vudu on May 19, 2010, 01:27:38 PM
If you didn't buy it new, you were never EA's customer.
If you did buy it new, then this news doesn't affect you.
Great point. Although, somehow I feel like I've read this somewhere before ... I wonder where .... (http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/forums/index.php?topic=31251.msg607607#msg607607)
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 19, 2010, 01:44:12 PM
It's simple and to the point.
I'm surprised that some people still don't get it though.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: UncleBob on May 19, 2010, 01:56:36 PM
EA is advertising on the box that the game comes with free DLC. Personally, my problem is that the lawsuit is against GameStop. I think the lawsuit is ridiculous anyways, but the customer was stupid enough to think it was GameStop's fault that EA charges a fee for people to get the DLC.
I bought a boxed Super Nintendo at a yardsale once. The box said it included Super Mario World. Do I sue Nintendo or the person having the yardsale because it wasn't in the box?
No, but you wouldn't sue the person doing the yardsale either (which is basically what this idiot suing GameStop is doing).
This does get interesting - who is responsible for making sure a product sold at a store is the same as the product advertised at the store?
Let's say Walmart is selling bottles of shampoo that advertise 20% more free. Let's say, for whatever reason, these bottles don't have the 20% more in them and Walmart is aware of this - yet continues to sell them anyway. Who is responsible, Walmart or the supplier who sold the goods to Walmart?
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: broodwars on May 19, 2010, 02:11:44 PM
This does get interesting - who is responsible for making sure a product sold at a store is the same as the product advertised at the store?
Let's say Walmart is selling bottles of shampoo that advertise 20% more free. Let's say, for whatever reason, these bottles don't have the 20% more in them and Walmart is aware of this - yet continues to sell them anyway. Who is responsible, Walmart or the supplier who sold the goods to Walmart?
That's not exactly the same scenario, though, because it's dealing with New Products where both parties are responsible for making sure the product on the shelf is as advertised. In that scenario, the shampoo manufacturer would instantly be liable, as would Walmart if it could be proven that Walmart sold that shampoo knowing it wasn't as advertised. Otherwise, just the shampoo manufacturer would be at fault.
With games it isn't the same situation, though. No games publisher has the responsibility of ensuring that games sold used still advertise the same features as those sold new. That's the problem of the reseller, who has the responsibility of letting its customers know that used products may be missing one or more features (manual, cover, free dlc, etc.). I still think such a lawsuit is stupid, though.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: UncleBob on May 19, 2010, 02:14:40 PM
This does get interesting - who is responsible for making sure a product sold at a store is the same as the product advertised at the store?
Let's say Walmart is selling bottles of shampoo that advertise 20% more free. Let's say, for whatever reason, these bottles don't have the 20% more in them and Walmart is aware of this - yet continues to sell them anyway. Who is responsible, Walmart or the supplier who sold the goods to Walmart?
That's not exactly the same scenario, though, because it's dealing with New Products where both parties are responsible for making sure the product on the shelf is as advertised. In that scenario, the shampoo manufacturer would instantly be liable, as would Walmart if it could be proven that Walmart sold that shampoo knowing it wasn't as advertised. Otherwise, just the shampoo manufacturer would be at fault.
With games it isn't the same situation, though. No games publisher has the responsibility of ensuring that games sold used still advertise the same features as those sold new. That's the problem of the reseller, who has the responsibility of letting its customers know that used products may be missing one or more features (manual, cover, free dlc, etc.). I still think such a lawsuit is stupid, though.
That's where my next question comes in.
Greg Smith sells a used copy of Madden 2011 to GameStop - without the online activation code.
Who is the supplier of this product to GameStop? It's not EA.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: broodwars on May 19, 2010, 03:13:27 PM
Greg Smith sells a used copy of Madden 2011 to GameStop - without the online activation code.
Who is the supplier of this product to GameStop? It's not EA.
The supplier would be Greg Smith, as he was the last entity with clear ownership of the product. It's good customer service for Gamestop to warn potential buyers for that copy of Madden that it might not have the Online Pass code, but that's pretty much all they're obligated to do. Honestly, considering Gamestop is essentially acting like a Pawn Shop, I'm sure that you could find clear precedent for that question in law regulating pawn shops.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Pale on May 19, 2010, 03:14:34 PM
I can't wait for digital delivery to take over. Then publishers won't have to do any of this stuff to protect themselves anymore, and Gamestop will be forced to change their business model.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: broodwars on May 19, 2010, 03:16:18 PM
I can't wait for digital delivery to take over. Then publishers won't have to do any of this stuff to protect themselves anymore, and Gamestop will be forced to change their business model.
On the flip side, though, we'll all be at the mercy of the publishers when it comes to game prices. Right now, if you don't have money for the full game, you can probably buy a new or used copy at a significantly lower price right now buying from an alternative seller. With digital distribution, though, unless we're talking about Valve we're probably going to see a lot of hard locks on that $50+ price tag and there won't be market forces to correct that.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 19, 2010, 03:19:08 PM
^that is a very good point.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: ControlerFleX on May 19, 2010, 04:21:40 PM
I can't wait for digital delivery to take over. Then publishers won't have to do any of this stuff to protect themselves anymore, and Gamestop will be forced to change their business model.
On the flip side, though, we'll all be at the mercy of the publishers when it comes to game prices. Right now, if you don't have money for the full game, you can probably buy a new or used copy at a significantly lower price right now buying from an alternative seller. With digital distribution, though, unless we're talking about Valve we're probably going to see a lot of hard locks on that $50+ price tag and there won't be market forces to correct that.
Talk about scary, because once, not if, EA sees how many hardcore sports players will still deal with it will be a business model that the other publishers will jump at and once that's done............ we're done.
Straight up digital solves one prob but creates a slew of others; hard drive issues, areas with download limits(I'm in one), and fixed/forced pricing. The way that Nintendo's VC/WW prices never budge............. yup no more summer and spring sales. either you want it or you don't.
(sniff)(sniff).... and I want it.....
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Pale on May 19, 2010, 04:26:31 PM
Antitrust laws would force a solution to that concern before it became a real problem. In a digital distribution future I predict that the government will force publishers to allow other virtual stores to carry their products at different prices.
Think of how Amazon works now. They sell codes for some titles.
There will definitely be some significant price fixing issues to work through, but Nintendo already went through that in the 80s. The consumer would be stood up for.
And that's ignoring the fact that these companies will almost definitely lower prices over time to spur sales. That's just simple economics.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: vudu on May 19, 2010, 04:36:35 PM
And that's ignoring the fact that these companies will almost definitely lower prices over time to spur sales. That's just simple economics.
Depends on the publisher and/or game. In the case of sports titles I think it's quite possible that the publisher will simply stop offering last year's game and force you to buy this year's at full price. Why would EA sell you Madden 2012 for $20 when they could sell you Madden 2013 for $60?
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Pale on May 19, 2010, 04:38:17 PM
True enough.
But that flies in the face of one of the main reasons I'm such a digital delivery advocate, and that's to remove "rarity" from games.
Sports games will hopefully just be an anomaly.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Guitar Smasher on May 19, 2010, 04:42:31 PM
I've explained myself more thoroughly in the other topic, but to be concise: This is simply double-dipping. The server costs were covered by the original purchase; the publisher just wants to squeeze a little extra profit out of the title.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: broodwars on May 19, 2010, 04:57:36 PM
I've explained myself more thoroughly in the other topic, but to be concise: This is simply double-dipping. The server costs were covered by the original purchase; the publisher just wants to squeeze a little extra profit out of the title.
That's one way to look at it, or you could look at it from the perspective that every used game sold is a new game not being sold so EA's losing potential profit, which is pretty much why they're doing this.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 19, 2010, 05:16:00 PM
And lol?, if some people can't sell last year's EA Sports title to GameStop, how can they afford this year's EA Sports title? lol?
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Guitar Smasher on May 19, 2010, 05:19:38 PM
broodwars:
I'm of the opinion that to counter used sales, publishers should add more value to new purchases or simply reduce the price, rather than devaluing both the original purchase and the used purchase.
The system that allows used game sales isn't what's wrong with the industry, it's the mindset of consumers who sell their games after one playthrough and the used buyers who can't justify paying full price. Frankly, if games were more valuable in the minds of consumers the whole used games industry would be much more balanced. Unfortunately it seems that most games released in the modern industry are simply priced too high and don't resonate enough with their audience.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: ControlerFleX on May 19, 2010, 05:21:55 PM
And that's ignoring the fact that these companies will almost definitely lower prices over time to spur sales. That's just simple economics.
Depends on the publisher and/or game. In the case of sports titles I think it's quite possible that the publisher will simply stop offering last year's game and force you to buy this year's at full price. Why would EA sell you Madden 2012 for $20 when they could sell you Madden 2013 for $60?
Yeah,
By limiting how many disks they ship they can further control how many are out there and create that hunger for the next title. Because this will push the sale of the new purchase and those that ensure that they want it new wont be trading it in because they play online till the new one is released. Skewing the availability of the used and still cash in when the older year goes to the bargain bin.
Title: ...
Post by: UncleBob on May 19, 2010, 05:28:26 PM
I disagree with the idea that server costs were covered with the inital purchase. If I buy GameX, I'm expected to play through it a couple of times, then probably not touch it much again. Most content, i'll probably download once (likely won't need to re-download patches, etc.). I'll likely play x amount of online matches and be done.
Now, if I resell the game, the next individual is going to play through the game a couple of times. They're going to want to redownload all the content for themselves. they're going to want to play a bunch of online matches - all on top of what I've already done.
When you buy an online game, the developers don't expect you to play it online forever - they take the average and favtor that cost into the initial purchase. If they're expected to factor in "lifetime, never ending connections", I think you'd see the price of games go up quite a bit.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: ControlerFleX on May 19, 2010, 05:33:56 PM
I'm of the opinion that to counter used sales, publishers should add more value to new purchases or simply reduce the price, rather than devaluing both the original purchase and the used purchase.
The system that allows used game sales isn't what's wrong with the industry, it's the mindset of consumers who sell their games after one playthrough and the used buyers who can't justify paying full price. Frankly, if games were more valuable in the minds of consumers the whole used games industry would be much more balanced. Unfortunately it seems that most games released in the modern industry are simply priced too high and don't resonate enough with their audience.
I think a lot of that comes from the cross the board pricing we get now a days, it's a bit better now because some titles may come out a few dollars less than the previous but it's still not common practice yet.
Uncharted 2 = $60 mmmm ok. Iron Man 2 = $60 mmmm FTW!
But value is always such a wide argument that it's hard to pinpoint. If one looked at how much time they pour in GTAuto, COD MW2, and Madden 2010 then they squoze every dolla out of it. But does that mean that single player games that only warrant two playthroughs and maybe 3 on super rare occasions should be the same price??
Too much to be held in the eye of the beholder to judge...
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 19, 2010, 05:36:28 PM
I've explained myself more thoroughly in the other topic, but to be concise: This is simply double-dipping. The server costs were covered by the original purchase; the publisher just wants to squeeze a little extra profit out of the title.
That's one way to look at it, or you could look at it from the perspective that every used game sold is a new game not being sold so EA's losing potential profit, which is pretty much why they're doing this.
or we can make another analogy. Why? because sometimes they're fun.
Let's say EA is a Buffet restaurant, the game is your receipt (given at time of purchase) and online is the all you can eat buffet.
20 people sit down to eat and take advantage of the all you can eat buffet till they've had their fill. Now they go outside and sell their receipt to the next hungry guy in line. That guy who says they already paid for the meal and shows his receipt, now sits down and eats all that he can and leaves and sells his(same) ticket to the next guy in line. rinse wash repeat till the day is over (server shuts down).
Now the buffet was designed that the cost of it would be spread out over time by the amount of legitimate customers that pay the price of the meal. Not everyone is gonna have 15 lobsters 4 steaks and enough plates of food to feed a small village. But just because someone only had a small salad and some fruit, doesn't mean the next hungry man in line can just come in and have his fill too without compensating the restaurant for eating their food on their premises.
The whole balance of economy is thrown off and the first and 2nd reseller basically just got a free lunch and now the Buffet is expected to just eat the cost.
Does that make sense.
Damn, when I started this post I was gonna be the post after the one I quoted. Damn distractions.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Ian Sane on May 19, 2010, 05:58:44 PM
I'm against this on entirely on the basis that it violates consumer rights. We have the right to buy used and SHOULD have the right to do so. And this isn't about poor little EA "losing" money to used sales, it's about grabbing an extra buck. They don't want to kill used game sales because it's "destroying the industry", but because if they can kill it off or get it outlawed then it's extra revenue for them. Plus this isn't just games. It effects the rights to buy anything used.
The idea that used sales creates all this extra cost for EA is reaching. If I play the game online for six months it is no different than if Joe plays it for three months and sells it to Jack who plays it for three months. It isn't like Joe and Jack can both play online at the same time. If EA has ANY business sense they have to be willing to assume that EVERY COPY of the game will result in someone playing for a reasonable period of time. In the case of sports game they can probably assume one year since few will continue to play it once the new version is out. To EA there is no difference between one person playing one copy for that entire year or six people playing one copy for an entire year. The cost to EA is identical.
And these companies always pull best-case scenario "lost sales" out of their butt. Everyone who rented COULD have been a sale. Everyone who bought used COULD have been sale. Everyone who pirates COULD have been a sale. The idea that those same people would have paid $60 for the game new if no other option was available is like assuming that every married women you've ever met WOULD have have sex with you if she was single.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: ControlerFleX on May 19, 2010, 06:23:25 PM
Let's say EA is a Buffet restaurant, the game is your receipt (given at time of purchase) and online is the all you can eat buffet.
20 people sit down to eat and take advantage of the all you can eat buffet till they've had their fill. Now they go outside and sell their receipt to the next hungry guy in line. That guy who says they already paid for the meal and shows his receipt, now sits down and eats all that he can and leaves and sells his(same) ticket to the next guy in line. rinse wash repeat till the day is over (server shuts down).
Now the buffet was designed that the cost of it would be spread out over time by the amount of legitimate customers that pay the price of the meal. Not everyone is gonna have 15 lobsters 4 steaks and enough plates of food to feed a small village. But just because someone only had a small salad and some fruit, doesn't mean the next hungry man in line can just come in and have his fill too without compensating the restaurant for eating their food on their premises.
AMAZING!!!!!!!!!! That was off tha chain.
Ian Sane,
Against it ENTIRELY?? Yes were entitled to used and this doesn't take away form that option but isn't EA and any other publisher for that matter entitled to try to get as much chedda as possible? FACT:If you but a BMW and re-sell it the next buyer can only get maintenance parts from BMW. This way BMW gets some type of money from people that didn't buy from them.
I'm not completely sold on the fact that the server cost is a big problem for EA but that's because I don't know what it costs them to stand it up and maintain.
Rentals get a free 7 day pass, and I'm sure that folk that do GameFly and keep forever already have disposable income and wont mind the $10. Yes EA will be alright but I think that in the future games like SplosionMan can go for retail and have a LittleBigPlanet like multiplayer.... and survive.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Morari on May 19, 2010, 06:29:44 PM
Against it ENTIRELY?? Yes were entitled to used and this doesn't take away form that option but isn't EA and any other publisher for that matter entitled to try to get as much chedda as possible? FACT:If you but a BMW and re-sell it the next buyer can only get maintenance parts from BMW. This way BMW gets some type of money from people that didn't buy from them.
And just like video games, new cars are insanely overpriced with little to no justification.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 19, 2010, 06:37:13 PM
I'm against this on entirely on the basis that it violates consumer rights. We have the right to buy used and SHOULD have the right to do so. And this isn't about poor little EA "losing" money to used sales, it's about grabbing an extra buck. They don't want to kill used game sales because it's "destroying the industry", but because if they can kill it off or get it outlawed then it's extra revenue for them. Plus this isn't just games. It effects the rights to buy anything used.
(http://i49.tinypic.com/200z5nr.jpg)
EA is in no way restricting the sale of used games.
Quote
The idea that used sales creates all this extra cost for EA is reaching. If I play the game online for six months it is no different than if Joe plays it for three months and sells it to Jack who plays it for three months. It isn't like Joe and Jack can both play online at the same time. If EA has ANY business sense they have to be willing to assume that EVERY COPY of the game will result in someone playing for a reasonable period of time. In the case of sports game they can probably assume one year since few will continue to play it once the new version is out. To EA there is no difference between one person playing one copy for that entire year or six people playing one copy for an entire year. The cost to EA is identical.
And these companies always pull best-case scenario "lost sales" out of their butt. Everyone who rented COULD have been a sale. Everyone who bought used COULD have been sale. Everyone who pirates COULD have been a sale. The idea that those same people would have paid $60 for the game new if no other option was available is like assuming that every married women you've ever met WOULD have have sex with you if she was single.
More like everyone can have sex with the same woman, but you have to reuse the same condom. Doesn't matter that the first 3 guys finished quickly and now it's the 4th guys turn, she should have planned for 1 hour of pure unadulterated sex. The hours been paid for so it's not like she had to endure any extra that wasn't accounted for......
(http://i48.tinypic.com/10xyiah.jpg)
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Stratos on May 19, 2010, 07:36:24 PM
I'm of the opinion that to counter used sales, publishers should add more value to new purchases or simply reduce the price, rather than devaluing both the original purchase and the used purchase.
The system that allows used game sales isn't what's wrong with the industry, it's the mindset of consumers who sell their games after one playthrough and the used buyers who can't justify paying full price. Frankly, if games were more valuable in the minds of consumers the whole used games industry would be much more balanced. Unfortunately it seems that most games released in the modern industry are simply priced too high and don't resonate enough with their audience.
I would say that pre-order bonuses and pack-ins are a form of extra incentive to buy new. Free beanies, toys and CDs can get people to pick up new copies. Amazon's discount deals for pre-orders gets me to purchase a lot of games much sooner than I intended to originally.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Ian Sane on May 19, 2010, 08:06:34 PM
Quote
Yes were entitled to used and this doesn't take away form that option but isn't EA and any other publisher for that matter entitled to try to get as much chedda as possible?
EA is entitled to what the market is willing to pay. If new game prices are too high and people tend to buy used then EA has to adapt. They have no God-given right to earn such-and-such amount of money for their games regardless of how much it costs to make them. They have a right to have people steal from them, as in the case of piracy. But there is nothing wrong with buying used goods. Stolen goods? Yes. But there is nothing wrong with someone selling something to me after they have no further use for it.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Guitar Smasher on May 19, 2010, 08:09:24 PM
or we can make another analogy. Why? because sometimes they're fun.
Let's say EA is a Buffet restaurant, the game is your receipt (given at time of purchase) and online is the all you can eat buffet.
20 people sit down to eat and take advantage of the all you can eat buffet till they've had their fill. Now they go outside and sell their receipt to the next hungry guy in line. That guy who says they already paid for the meal and shows his receipt, now sits down and eats all that he can and leaves and sells his(same) ticket to the next guy in line. rinse wash repeat till the day is over (server shuts down).
Now the buffet was designed that the cost of it would be spread out over time by the amount of legitimate customers that pay the price of the meal. Not everyone is gonna have 15 lobsters 4 steaks and enough plates of food to feed a small village. But just because someone only had a small salad and some fruit, doesn't mean the next hungry man in line can just come in and have his fill too without compensating the restaurant for eating their food on their premises.
The whole balance of economy is thrown off and the first and 2nd reseller basically just got a free lunch and now the Buffet is expected to just eat the cost.
Does that make sense.
Damn, when I started this post I was gonna be the post after the one I quoted. Damn distractions.
I understand what you're saying with your analogy, but it's wrong in multiple facets.
1) The first customer isn't relinquishing ownership of the food he/she ate. 2) The cost of service incurred by the buffet represents the entire cost. Online is only a fraction of the cost of a game. 3) The scenario you illustrated would constitute fraud, and there's nothing fraudulent about the current used games market.
I realize that you're saying that the publishers just want to move to a scenario like the buffet, but I object to the fact that this devalues the original purchase (lower resell value).
I disagree with the idea that server costs were covered with the inital purchase. If I buy GameX, I'm expected to play through it a couple of times, then probably not touch it much again. Most content, i'll probably download once (likely won't need to re-download patches, etc.). I'll likely play x amount of online matches and be done.
Now, if I resell the game, the next individual is going to play through the game a couple of times. They're going to want to redownload all the content for themselves. they're going to want to play a bunch of online matches - all on top of what I've already done.
When you buy an online game, the developers don't expect you to play it online forever - they take the average and favtor that cost into the initial purchase. If they're expected to factor in "lifetime, never ending connections", I think you'd see the price of games go up quite a bit.
You have a point with the DLC being downloaded multiple times - expecting only 1 download is reasonable (or more times if the content needs to be replaced). But I think the real issue with DLC is that it should be on the disc initially. If the publisher wants to sell additional content after printing, that's perfectly fine with me if they strive to make the original content "complete". But this is another topic...
As for the usage of online playing, I understand what you say about expecting an average usage time, but I'm of the opinion that the publisher shouldn't be counting on lower participation when factoring cost, as this is a poor business plan. And let's be honest, if server costs for online matches is so great, this is likely a result of the hardcore of hardcore fans who play the game non-stop. I don't have any evidence but I imagine the used buyer plays online considerably less.
EA is in no way restricting the sale of used games.
No need to patronize Ian, he wasn't implying that EA was implementing a ban on used games. But it does restrict used gaming by lowering the resale value for the original buyer. And I don't think anyone doubts that this is just one step in the industry's march to get rid of used games outright. Do you think it's going to stop here?
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 19, 2010, 08:53:31 PM
Yes were entitled to used and this doesn't take away form that option but isn't EA and any other publisher for that matter entitled to try to get as much chedda as possible?
EA is entitled to what the market is willing to pay. If new game prices are too high and people tend to buy used then EA has to adapt. They have no God-given right to earn such-and-such amount of money for their games regardless of how much it costs to make them.
Then why are you arguing EA's right to charge money for access to their servers and additional DLC if you were not the original purchaser of their game? They have the right to adapt, and this is how they are doing it. The market has a right to decide and that's exactly what they'll do.
Quote from: Ian
They have a right to have people steal from them, as in the case of piracy. But there is nothing wrong with buying used goods. Stolen goods? Yes. But there is nothing wrong with someone selling something to me after they have no further use for it.
But they are not preventing you from selling the game. You can be the 15th owner of a copy of a game and enjoy it to your hearts delight. No one is stopping you from that. You ant to play local multi, then fine have fun. If the online connects peer-to-peer then have at it.
But if you need to access their servers, you gonna have to buy a pass to their park. You weren't their customer before (you were a customer of who ever sold you the game as they tried to recover a portion of their cost or in the case of GS profit from their investment) but now you're gonna be.
EA is in no way restricting the sale of used games.
No need to patronize Ian, he wasn't implying that EA was implementing a ban on used games. But it does restrict used gaming by lowering the resale value for the original buyer. And I don't think anyone doubts that this is just one step in the industry's march to get rid of used games outright. Do you think it's going to stop here?
But why would any publisher give a damn about resale value if it doesn't benefit them in anyway what so ever. Some company like Lexus or Mercedes cares about resale value since high resale value is a sign of luxury that justifies the initial high price of the car and the parts you have to go to them for regardless of when or where you bought the car, but EA is receiving absolutely nothing from 2nd handers or pirates who are in turn using EA's hose to water their lawn.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Mop it up on May 19, 2010, 08:56:23 PM
This, like DLC and digital distribution, seem like nothing more than ways for companies to circumvent consumer rights. No good can come of this.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Guitar Smasher on May 19, 2010, 09:10:35 PM
But why would any publisher give a damn about resale value if it doesn't benefit them in anyway what so ever. Some company like Lexus or Mercedes cares about resale value since high resale value is a sign of luxury that justifies the initial high price of the car and the parts you have to go to them for regardless of when or where you bought the car, but EA is receiving absolutely nothing from 2nd handers or pirates who are in turn using EA's hose to water their lawn.
I think we can agree that the used market is large. If the original buyers who plan to sell used aren't able to recover enough of their original investment (because GS or whoever decides that a used game is now worth even less), then they'll think twice about buying their next game. This is only portion of new-buying customers but since the used market is so large, it's worth consideration.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 19, 2010, 09:28:40 PM
But why would any publisher give a damn about resale value if it doesn't benefit them in anyway what so ever. Some company like Lexus or Mercedes cares about resale value since high resale value is a sign of luxury that justifies the initial high price of the car and the parts you have to go to them for regardless of when or where you bought the car, but EA is receiving absolutely nothing from 2nd handers or pirates who are in turn using EA's hose to water their lawn.
I think we can agree that the used market is large. If the original buyers who plan to sell used aren't able to recover enough of their original investment (because GS or whoever decides that a used game is now worth even less), then they'll think twice about buying their next game. This is only portion of new-buying customers but since the used market is so large, it's worth consideration.
Or they won't bother to sell it and just pony up the cash for the new game. or find better ways to dump their used games like ebay or other online sites that buy, sell or trade. or just play that version for longer and only buy the yearly update every other year. There are options, and I'm not saying that everyone will be ideal, but for every action there is a reaction and consumers will have to make a choice.
This is a market test because EA felt they had to take some sort of action vs doing nothing, and nothing wasn't expanding their customer base. This action essentially makes a customer out of everyone playing the game regardless if you were an original purchaser, and 2nd hand purchaser or a filthy stinking pirate (AARRGGH!!!!).
I've said before that I think this is a slippery slope that can be abused in ways that we might not see coming yet, but there is nothing wrong with the current approach EA is taking.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 19, 2010, 09:40:07 PM
What more needs to be said?
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Guitar Smasher on May 19, 2010, 09:43:23 PM
Is it safe to assume that the offer price for used games will be $10 less, regardless of source, since the equivalent new experience would cost that much more? Of course certain buyers won't care about online and will pay the same as before, but the general used sales market will have its prices devalued by ~$10. I think the number of gamers who buy new to beat the game "first", then quickly flip the game so that they can move on to the next new title is underestimated. This relates to economics, but their game buying habits will change, and I don't think they'll just pony up the difference. More likely they'll buy fewer titles, and probably stick to the more well-known games.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: UncleBob on May 19, 2010, 11:39:58 PM
This, like DLC and digital distribution, seem like nothing more than ways for companies to circumvent consumer rights. No good can come of this.
This actually seems like a compromise to me. It's a decent middle ground. You're not tied to one machine or one owner - you can still resell your product and get some of your initial investment back. You can use the game ten or twenty years down the road without fear that the server is no longer online to authenticate your game or that you don't have the original DSi you downloaded the game on.
If new game prices are too high and people tend to buy used then EA has to adapt.
You are 100% correct, sir.
And this is how EA has chosen to adapt.
New question - What if EA universally dropped the price of new games $10 and did not include the activation code. Instead, you pay $50 for the game and if you want to play it online or have access to the online content, you then pay the extra $10? What would your opinion be on that?
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Shaymin on May 19, 2010, 11:54:51 PM
It's not just EA looking to stick it to us, though.
Destructoid: UFC Undisputed 2010 requires code to play online (http://www.destructoid.com/ufc-undisputed-2010-requires-code-to-play-online-174080.phtml)
Quote
THQ is delivering a truly unmatched online gaming experience for fans of UFC and across all fighting games in general. The main enhancement of UFC Undisputed 2010’s premium online content is the new “Fight Camp Mode” in which players can assemble ranks of up to 40 people and train together. This is a significant value-add to the game as players can continually improve their skills by training with their friends and bringing teams of MMA specialists together.
This multiplayer content for UFC Undisputed 2010 will be available via a one-time code included with the game at purchase. Codes for accessing the content will be available for second-time buyers for an additional $5.
Details for acquiring the codes and how this will work will be available via the UFC community site.
And UFC comes out next Tuesday, so THQ's actually early to the party on this one.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: SixthAngel on May 20, 2010, 01:14:16 AM
Every time you take a game to a friends house now you have to transfer your account to their system if you want to play online. Yay, better remember all that info by heart or get it from your mom and dad young uns.
There is nothing good in this decision. First of all EA isn't running dedicated servers here. This is the same **** that has been free forever until MS joined in. These servers cost freaking nothing. Buying a used game doesn't make them pay more for me. I simply take the slot that the other person already paid for.
This actually seems like a compromise to me. It's a decent middle ground. You're not tied to one machine or one owner - you can still resell your product and get some of your initial investment back. You can use the game ten or twenty years down the road without fear that the server is no longer online to authenticate your game or that you don't have the original DSi you downloaded the game on.
It is a terrible middle ground. Just because another option is even worse doesn't make this any better. I'm not content with "we're only going to screw you a little"
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: UncleBob on May 20, 2010, 01:42:17 AM
How is EA screwing you? If you buy from them, you're getting the exact same product you've always gotten. EA has never made any promises about resell value.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: ControlerFleX on May 20, 2010, 03:51:55 AM
How is EA screwing you? If you buy from them, you're getting the exact same product you've always gotten. EA has never made any promises about resell value.
Exactly,
I truly do not understand how EA and THQ are SOOOOO evil for doing this.
You buy it new=you paid them for the SERVICE they provide. You buy it used=you pay for the service GameStop/Pawn Shop/some shady dude provides. Want EA/THQ/the next publisher to adapt service??? F*** Y** PAY ME!!!
New question - What if EA universally dropped the price of new games $10 and did not include the activation code. Instead, you pay $50 for the game and if you want to play it online or have access to the online content, you then pay the extra $10? What would your opinion be on that?
It would stop "some" crying but then folk would still think there being cheated because the service is there and $50 is good enough to give them to have access.
Anytime consumers have to begin paying for something that WUZZZ free or should be included, it's an "OUTRAGE"!
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on May 20, 2010, 01:11:58 PM
Anytime consumers have to begin paying for something that WUZZZ free or should be included, it's an "OUTRAGE"!
Completely true. Video game publishers used to give us so much that the only way they can "add value" for new purchases is to withhold things from us. The extras in "collector" editions used to be pretty common, for example. Their more recent attempts to do the same with in-game content haven't been as well tolerated, but I don't know what else they could do. Charging for only the online access is hampered by the platform provider already charging (i.e. Live), so it can't not look like double-dipping from the consumer side.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Ian Sane on May 20, 2010, 06:39:12 PM
What I kind so appalling is the utter indifference towards our rights to a secondhand market from the people here who support this. EA, and much of the industry, have been very openly hostile about used games. This isn't "oh golly gee, we can't make ends meet". They hate the used games market, they want it GONE.
We KNOW their overall incentive and it isn't good. And this is a very obvious first step to try to eliminate the used market. They'll push it as far as they can. It seems very naive to assume that this will okay and they won't cross the line and push it further. And what if this extends to markets beyond videogames? Would you be happy with DVDs that locked out features if you bought used or albums that excluded songs?
I also think EA and these other companies have done a very effective job of spreading the propaganda that the rights to a secondhand market we have had since forever is WRONG and that we're bad people if we buy things used. The spread of this idea is very dangerous. It is entirely fed to us by big corporations who want to bleed us dry. They would LOVE it if used sales were outright illegal without a cut going to the parent company. Flea markets, garage sales, eBay, Craig's list, or just selling your used car - gone. They would love to kill that stuff off and they're spreading the idea that this stuff is somehow wrong. After that I figure the attack will be on borrowing stuff because, well hell, why should I let my neighbour borrow my snow shovel? That's just ripping off the snow shovel company out of his potential sale!
I see a lot of this digitial rights stuff regarding IP to be an attack on the right to own physical property. And I say that as a musician who would not want people pirating his music. Something that is seriously wrong, stealing, has been used as a launching point to squash consumer rights and give more power to large corporations. And I say this as someone who is quite supportive of capitalism. Pirating videogames is wrong. Buying used games isn't. Ripping MP3s off CDs you bought to put on your MP3 player isn't. Watching a DVD you purchased with a whole group of your non-paying friends watching isn't.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 20, 2010, 07:34:47 PM
......
EA isn't stopping you from selling your disc. You assume to know the future and where this is headed, but it's not there yet and there is no proof that it will ever get there, but....
Actually, like Pro already said... what more is there to say. so I'm not even gonna get into again.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Ian Sane on May 20, 2010, 08:00:29 PM
We've got a big company with a bad reputation that only cares about getting money out of us stepping on our toes and our rights. Why wouldn't I assume the worst?
Consumers at best are unaffected by this and at worst are. This benefits consumers is no way at all and involves extra money in EA's pocket. You're the one trusting a big corporation with a bad reputation on something that benefits you in NO WAY. Why defend them unless you work for EA? We're doing nothing wrong and they're treating us like criminals and trying to squeeze extra money out of honest consumers and you DEFEND this. WHY? It makes absolutely no sense to me.
I'm getting this vibe like I'm totally out of line because I'm upset that EA is taking away something that used to be free. I can see disagreeing with me but it feels like my whole point is being brushed aside as lunacy.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 20, 2010, 08:19:33 PM
I buy the game new.... nothing has changed.
Your whole point is lunacy BTW. There is nothing wrong with EA making customers out of non-customers especially when those non-customers are using company resources that continually cost money to provide.
If it don't make dollars then it don't make sense. and this makes financial sense, business sense and logical sense and I think you know why.... (pssst.... because it makes dollars)
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Morari on May 20, 2010, 09:22:15 PM
This, like DLC and digital distribution, seem like nothing more than ways for companies to circumvent consumer rights. No good can come of this.
Agreed. The only place I've really seen digital distribution done correctly thus far is "Good Old Games". Great prices, better than average games, and no DRM! :)
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: UncleBob on May 20, 2010, 10:07:56 PM
We've got a big company with a bad reputation that only cares about getting money out of us stepping on our toes and our rights. Why wouldn't I assume the worst?
Consumers at best are unaffected by this and at worst are. This benefits consumers is no way at all and involves extra money in EA's pocket. You're the one trusting a big corporation with a bad reputation on something that benefits you in NO WAY. Why defend them unless you work for EA? We're doing nothing wrong and they're treating us like criminals and trying to squeeze extra money out of honest consumers and you DEFEND this. WHY? It makes absolutely no sense to me.
I'm getting this vibe like I'm totally out of line because I'm upset that EA is taking away something that used to be free. I can see disagreeing with me but it feels like my whole point is being brushed aside as lunacy.
Okay, Ian - I'm going to try and hash this out with you and not brush you aside.
Tell me, exactly, without analogies and the idea of the way you *think* things should be...
Exactly how is EA treating anyone like criminals and what rights are you losing by these actions?
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Ymeegod on May 20, 2010, 11:22:43 PM
This really isn't anything new, but I think GS has a responsibilty to the consumer to point out what is or isn't included. Reminds me years ago when EB was still selling used PC games and how some of the games had invalid or missing cd keys. After a few years there was so much complaints that EB stopped selling Used PC games.
GS has to let the buyer be aware of vouchers especially because you can't go by the cases because GS sells games without them anyhow. Recall just a few weeks ago a buddy of mine purchased a used GoW 2 GOTY from them and ended up finding out that really he just purchased GoW 2 because all the DLC content was from a one-use voucher which means he paid extra for the GOTY edition even though it didn't include crap. He went back for a refund which they did give him after a hour.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: ControlerFleX on May 21, 2010, 03:30:49 AM
Anytime consumers have to begin paying for something that WUZZZ free or should be included, it's an "OUTRAGE"!
Parking on the street in downtown areas use-ta be free...... Toys use-ta come in the cereal box.... PS3 use-ta be backwards compatible....... I use-ta be a woman......... wait, now that's an outrage!
But seriously, yes EA is a big company. But big companies want to stay big, so they have to have forward thinking ideas.
But was EA soooooo EVIL when they worked to bring in new IP's from from quirky developers that didn't sell?
Ian Sane my kind sir, Were not defending them, WE UNDERSTAND -- WHAT THEY -- ARE -- DOOOING.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: SixthAngel on May 21, 2010, 11:38:00 AM
After that I figure the attack will be on borrowing stuff because, well hell, why should I let my neighbour borrow my snow shovel? That's just ripping off the snow shovel company out of his potential sale!
This already destroys borrowing, no need for another attack. If I borrow a friends game I can't play it online. EA says I'm a deadbeat who better pay that money if I want to that game online for a week.
You like to rent games? Do you use Gamefly? EA gives you the big middle finger and says better buy or you can't play online, unless you want an extra 10 dollars added to your rental fee.
How is EA screwing you? If you buy from them, you're getting the exact same product you've always gotten. EA has never made any promises about resell value.
See above. This isn't just about selling used games which already screws me because I don't keep my games forever. It changes a lot more.
Ian Sane my kind sir, Were not defending them, WE UNDERSTAND -- WHAT THEY -- ARE -- DOOOING.
So does Ian, he just thinks its bull****. Oh yeah, and you are defending them since you have multiple posts where you try to convince people that EA isn't evil (your word not mine).
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 21, 2010, 11:48:26 AM
Incorporate half-hour trial windows per day, for borrower types =D
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: broodwars on May 21, 2010, 11:49:35 AM
You like to rent games? Do you use Gamefly? EA gives you the big middle finger and says better buy or you can't play online, unless you want an extra 10 dollars added to your rental fee.
Just use your 7-day trial, as has already been mentioned several times. ::) Just like that, you're playing online on a rental or with the game borrowed.
Apparently there are an awful lot more people than I thought who like to play EA Sports games online, yet don't like actually buying the game when it's new and everyone's revving up to play each other online.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 21, 2010, 11:59:38 AM
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.
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: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Ian Sane on May 21, 2010, 12:44:41 PM
Quote
Tell me, exactly, without analogies and the idea of the way you *think* things should be...
Things should be as they were before EA introduced this idea. It isn't illegal to buy used and it isn't wrong to buy used so nothing should be taken away from someone who buys used. EA ain't going under because of used games and they don't lose squat from extra online maintenance because the amount of users using their system remains the same whether one guy owns one copy forever or six guys do. Only one person can go online with that copy at once so the cost to EA is the same. And this a sports game so no one is going to play it online within a year anyway, as it will be replaced like all EA games are.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 21, 2010, 01:06:04 PM
But you keep ignoring the fact that EA isn't preventing you from buying used. They are making buying it NEW more enticing. You can buy new and not pay full price BTW.
And this isn't just about 2nd hand gamers, this also effectively makes customers out of Pirates (who didn't pay anyone for anything) if they want to take the game online.
It also undermines the 2nd hand shops (not the buyers) by making the over priced used game (compared to what they bought it back for) not seem as worthy as a new purchase (at the price they are charging for used games).
If you know Online pass cost $10 and you are gonna buy the game used for $5 less than retail, then you might reconsider and just buy the game new so that the money goes where it was supposed to in the first place.
What will likely happen is stores like GS will lower their used game price another $5, but the smart consumer will still just buy it new since it will pretty much cost the same anyway (depending on where you bought it and the tax in your state), once again, putting the money where it should have gone in the first place.
Stores like GS are taking the middle man approach to a whole new level and reaping all the profits. They are undermining their supplier and cutting them out of the loop after the initial shipment. If you owned a business and your connection to the consumer was effectively cutting you out, you would have to do something about it too. This is EA finding a way to not be cut out of the transaction.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Ymeegod on May 21, 2010, 01:15:18 PM
I'm actually glad EA did state something about rentals because THQ made a real ugly stance because they plan on charging $5 per account regardless if you buy or rent. EA's 7 day pass sounds like a godsend because I normally rent games and purchase them later.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: ControlerFleX on May 21, 2010, 02:05:44 PM
Ian Sane my kind sir, Were not defending them, WE UNDERSTAND -- WHAT THEY -- ARE -- DOOOING.
So does Ian, he just thinks its bull****. Oh yeah, and you are defending them since you have multiple posts where you try to convince people that EA isn't evil (your word not mine).
From what I read I understood that Mr. Ian Sane thinks that EA is "stealing" from the consumer that wants to buy EA's product...... they are not.
Defending them..... well I thought I was rationalizing with the BUSINESS decision that they made.
Let's not get it twisted, I play Madden. I almost NEVER buy the current year game. The only current years I EVER bought were 96 and 2000. I live in Japan and I play online with my siblings to keep in touch( I do not facebook....). For years my brothers and I wait till the new year comes out and then RAID the bargain bin. Game stop only goes down to 35 duckets of the previous year titles(used) but Target/Best Buy/WalMart got dem joints for 75% off........new. This trend is almost gar-ron-teeeed to continue and I'm sure that code stays in that UN OPENED box......
For the most part we ALL love Amazon/EBay?our cousin/GameStop(no mater how they may treat us) and the opportunity they allow........MORE GAMING AT A CHEAPER PRICE. But it does Limit what publishers can do, which limits developers, which creates half a$$ games because there are so many of us(me included) that just wait a little while and get it for the low low.
At the end of the day all of us want the best gaming product possible for the dollas we spend. But those of us(the more educated gamers that take the time to even take notice to a topic like this) who see and hear about game studios shutting down and people losing jobs must realize that the gaming industry must set themselves up for as much success as possible, no matter which company it is.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Ian Sane on May 21, 2010, 03:09:26 PM
Quote
But you keep ignoring the fact that EA isn't preventing you from buying used. They are making buying it NEW more enticing. You can buy new and not pay full price BTW.
I see it more like blackmail. They aren't adding anything to buying it new, just taking away something from buying it used. Yeah I still CAN buy used. They technically aren't preventing anyone from doing that. But they're making it so that anyone that does has to go through an extra hassle and cost to get what they previously would have had before. That is essentially a backhanded way of preventing a used sale (unless the price difference is significantly greater than $10). It's a poison pill on used games. They don't prevent it, they just remove all value in it.
One thing that gives me a personal stake in this is that I don't buy used from Gamestop because I'm not a stupid nitwit. $5 off is not worth a scratched disc or folded manual or chipped case. $15-20 is more the level of savings I look into. When I buy used I do it from a local chain that actually offers a decent discount for used titles and doesn't bug your ass about pre-orders. Decent stores exist that sell used games. I think there is a blind hatred of Gamestop here that blurs the issue. I also buy used games in situations where the original title is out-of-print. If the stupid publisher doesn't ship enough copies to fulfill demand then why should I have features cut out of the game I buy? Maybe I would have bought it new if I could have at the time. Sometimes I just don't have the funds handy, or I don't own the system the game is for yet, or I didn't even find out about the game until later. The used game model isn't just jerkwads trading in games three days after they buy them and stupids buying used to save five bucks.
I also think the idea that a used game buyer is not a customer is flawed. I have bought games used and then later bought the sequels brand new because the first game was so good that I just HAD to own the sequel on day one. An impulse used game sale has allowed me to get into a franchise or a company that I wasn't willing to try at full price. My first Zelda game was a used copy of A Link to the Past. I would not have bought numerous Zelda games brand new had that first game not hooked me in. And nowadays a lot of games have DLC. You can get someone in on a used sale and then later they buy a bunch of DLC. If EA did their annual roster updates through DLC instead of annual releases any the used buyers would become customers when they updated the roster.
A used game sale can attract a future customer and unlike piracy it isn't stealing. But with this sort of practice a company can make a bad impression and turn customers off. Is this really worth consumer bad will? I highly doubt Gamestop employees are going to do a good job at informing customers of the details of this. So some guy buys the game used, tries to go online and is presented with a BILL from EA about how he has to pay this extra fee he knew nothing about. Is he going to just be understanding and cool with EA about this? "Oh they're punishing me for buying new! I totally am understanding and fine with this and will look forward to buying more EA products... at full price of course!"
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 21, 2010, 03:25:32 PM
It's like you pick and choose parts of arguments to address when all the concerns you present have already been addressed.
You buy used, it's NOT EA's place to inform you that what you would have gotten in a brand new product may not be in the box anymore.
A FUTURE customer is not a current customer and I can't count on FUTURE customers being there anymore than I can count on GS to inform it's customers that "things that came with a new purchase may not be included in the used purchase" of their own free will.
Buy a NEW game DOES NOT mean that you have to pay full price. There are plenty of deals on new games that are no where near the full price.
Gamestop is THE largest specialty gaming shop in the US, so when you compare your local shop to the practices of GS, your local shop is not on anyone's map but your own. If used game sales were restricted to small local shops like that, I doubt most of this drama would have started (the way it did and when it did) in the first place.
p.s. that extra hassle that EA is putting on their non-but soon to be current-customers through is the market adapting to the middle man trying to cut them out of their own business. If he bought it NEW (which once again does not mean full price) he wouldn't have to go through that hassle. A convenience of being an EA customer.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Guitar Smasher on May 21, 2010, 03:27:19 PM
But you keep ignoring the fact that EA isn't preventing you from buying used. They are making buying it NEW more enticing. You can buy new and not pay full price BTW.
No, they are making used games LESS enticing. It's a fine distinction. Not to mention the fact that your copy of Madden 10 or w/e is worth less the second you register it, than your copy of Madden 09 was the year before.
BNM, I'm curious as to how far you want to see used games eliminated? Just online-enabled games? All games? I trying to figure out why you defend EA so strongly.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: vudu on May 21, 2010, 04:50:22 PM
Used game sales are bad for the industry in that they eliminate the people who created the games from the financial equation. They drive up the prices of new games (and used games) because publishers know that a smaller percentage of people will buy the game new than will play the game.
People like Morari will argue that the majority of people who buy games used wouldn't buy the game at full price and therefore they shouldn't be considered a lost sale. However, for the sake of argument let's assume that 50% of a game's sales are used and 80% of those people who bought the game used wouldn't have bought the game at full price if it were the only option.
IT'S TIME FOR FUN WITH MATH
Let's assume a game sells a million copies (all new). At $50 a pop that's gross sales of $50 million. Another one million people buy the game used. If the game wasn't available used and only 20% of those people bought it new that's still an additional 200,000 people who bought the game for an additional $10 million in gross revenue.
That means that a company like EA could reduce the SRP of the $50 game to $41.67 and still make $50 million gross even if not a single additional person bought the game due to the lower price.
However, it's quite realistic to assume that additional people who weren't interested in the game enough to buy it at $50 would buy it at ~$40. So now let's assume that an additional 10% of people buy the game--instead of 1.2 million people we have 1.32 million people buying the game at $41.67. Gross revenue is now $55 million.
Again, EA could lower the price of the game to $37.88 and still get a gross revenue of $50 million when 1.32 million people buy the game new.
You see where I'm going with this. The more people who buy a game new the more money goes into the publisher's pockets. Or--alternatively--the more people who buy a game new the lower the price of the game needs to be in order to meet the publisher's financial expectations.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: UncleBob on May 21, 2010, 08:07:03 PM
Tell me, exactly, without analogies and the idea of the way you *think* things should be...
Things should be [...]
You did *exactly* what I asked for you not to do. Don't tell me the way you think things should be.
Tell me, exactly, what *rights* EA is taking away from you and how they're treating you like a *criminal*.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 21, 2010, 08:29:02 PM
The right to clean his rectum with a cactus.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: ControlerFleX on May 21, 2010, 08:56:39 PM
vudu,
Awesome points. My brain exploded though.
Mr. Bob,
He cant here you.
Guitar Smasher,
Are you even reading the posts? BlacknMild2k1, vudu, UncleBob, and myself aren't blindly defending EA(or any other publisher that WILL use this model) nor do we want to see the complete demise of used games sales.
Were just trying to point out that you just can't take the position of " Maaan I don't like dis so it aint right, dey be akin' stupid"
Used games have the ability to entice you to buy the sequel to a cool game, but we dont get that sequel if More and More and More people buy it used.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 21, 2010, 10:49:25 PM
But you keep ignoring the fact that EA isn't preventing you from buying used. They are making buying it NEW more enticing. You can buy new and not pay full price BTW.
No, they are making used games LESS enticing. It's a fine distinction. Not to mention the fact that your copy of Madden 10 or w/e is worth less the second you register it, than your copy of Madden 09 was the year before.
BNM, I'm curious as to how far you want to see used games eliminated? Just online-enabled games? All games? I trying to figure out why you defend EA so strongly.
My like-minded individuals with common logical business sense have already answered this, but I'm not defending EA as a company, and I don't wish to see used games eliminated.
I am merely trying to point out how Online Pass (the way EA is incorporating it) makes perfect sense and seems very fair from every perspective I can think of (unless you are a Pirate).
The real problem here is actually Gamestop and how they almost refuse to stock new games infavor of only selling used copies. Beyond the initial shipment (pre-orders +3 or 4 copies depending on the game) they are out of stock and try to guilt trip you with "You should have pre-ordered it". Knowing that there is demand for the game, they immediately try to stock up on as many used copies of it as they can, so that they can make the $55 per copy (minus the $30 they bought it for) vs the $10 per copy they would have made on a New copy (I imagine that $50 goes back to EA to redistribute amongst all those that need to be compensated).
Now I don't blame GS for wanting to make more profit, but they really do avoid purchasing more New copies so that they can cut out EA from the retail economy past that first shipment. It's pretty much like GS took EA's coke, cut it with extra stuff and put it back on the street at a slight discount and pocketed all the extra profit under the guise (aka street cred) of EA's product. What self respecting dealer would let their corner boy hustle them like that?
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Guitar Smasher on May 22, 2010, 12:48:39 AM
Are you even reading the posts? BlacknMild2k1, vudu, UncleBob, and myself aren't blindly defending EA(or any other publisher that WILL use this model) nor do we want to see the complete demise of used games sales.
Were just trying to point out that you just can't take the position of " Maaan I don't like dis so it aint right, dey be akin' stupid"
Used games have the ability to entice you to buy the sequel to a cool game, but we dont get that sequel if More and More and More people buy it used.
Don't patronize me. I've explained what I object to, so don't tell me I can't have an opinion. If you must object to my arguments, then for the love of Pete address them specifically. God forbid someone defends the consumer! The sad thing is I don't buy used, nor do I sell my games...
And let me recap the range of opinions you guys have have shared:
Used games are bad for the industry / Used gamers aren't real customers / Used games lead to new sales of sequels / We don't want to see used games eliminated
Is there not a certain disconnect between these ideas?
And you guys need to review your definition of 'defending'. It means "To support or maintain, as by argument or action; justify." There's nothing wrong with defending a large corporation, I do it when talking piracy. But it's also fair to defend the consumer, and I don't feel I should be labeled "a complainer" or accused of sounding uneducated or having no logical business sense.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: ControlerFleX on May 22, 2010, 10:54:09 AM
And let me recap the range of opinions you guys have have shared:
Used games are bad for the industry / Used gamers aren't real customers / Used games lead to new sales of sequels / We don't want to see used games eliminated
Is there not a certain disconnect between these ideas?
And you guys need to review your definition of 'defending'. It means "To support or maintain, as by argument or action; justify." There's nothing wrong with defending a large corporation, I do it when talking piracy. But it's also fair to defend the consumer, and I don't feel I should be labeled "a complainer" or accused of sounding uneducated or having no logical business sense.
If I have insulted you and inadvertently called you uneducated I do apologize(your showing weakness), that is never my intent. And according to Websters your absolutely right about my "defending" so maybe I need to further educate myself before posting(I knew that GED wasn't worth squat).
BlacknMild2k1, vudu, UncleBob, I apologize to you if I'm using your names in vein.(pffttt! wimp)
But I do want to clarify my opinions in your recaps;
Used games are bad for the industry; Used games indirectly causes problems for publishers/developers because those sales don't reflect how many people want and play their games. If investors/publishers knew how many of their titles of interest were being sold at a place like GS, this may be handled differently.
Used gamers aren't real customers; They are real customers, they are(insert your used gaming option here)'s customers.
Used games lead to new sales of sequels; Used games CAN lead to new sales of sequels but more times than not it leads to a used game sequel sale.
We don't want to see used games eliminated; Nope, sure don't. I wouldn't have played half of the games that i have if it wasn't for the used games market. Didn't know about Zack & wiki till late in the game. Pikimin, Arkaham Asylum, GBA Pokemon that you cant get in the new joints. Thank you used games, thank you........fin
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Toruresu on May 22, 2010, 11:14:39 AM
Well, perhaps EA should tell GS "NBA 2k12 is out, but you need to buy them in amounts of 50" or something like that. That way there is better hope that GS will have new games in stock and not just used. My local GS almost always have used instead of stock, and I'm talking new games here, not old ones.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 22, 2010, 08:27:20 PM
GS is a HUGE chain of stores and has way too much POP power for EA to push that on them. EA wants to make sure they continue to sell all their games in those 1000's of stores nationwide, but EA also wants to make sure that they make a customer out of everyone that is playing their games.
Since that is physically impossible because of piracy and used games sales, they do it through online access for DLC and multi-player. From a business perspective it makes perfect sense and from a consumer level it sems very fair. If you bought it new, it does not affect you. If you bought it used, then I hope you got it at a great enough discount to justify not buying new because the online portions now cost an access fee.* If you downloaded this for free, then you are gonna have to cough up some cash to get it online.
*Selling used games(at almost new prices) is how GS found their loophole in the system. Online Pass is EA effectively plugging that hole and stopping a leak.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: UncleBob on May 22, 2010, 08:57:35 PM
Well, perhaps EA should tell GS "NBA 2k12 is out, but you need to buy them in amounts of 50" or something like that.
Why would EA want GameStop to buy X amount of copies of a 2K sports game? ;)
Anywhoo - your plan wouldn't work - all GS would have to do is round their order to the nearest 50, ship 'em to a GS distributor and then repack them for the stores, only sending what they need. Even if they only planned to order 1 copy per store (what, let's say they have 2,001 stores) and now have to order 2050 copies, that's only going to throw a second copy in about 2.5% of the stores.
Even if they did this, and GameStop went for it, it would go a long way toward creating backstock of older games which would A.) Drive down the price of the new game, B.) Devalue used games, C.) Make GameStop want to order less copies of 2k13.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Chozo Ghost on May 22, 2010, 09:24:46 PM
The Tiger Woods game should be boycotted for two reasons:
1) Tiger's infidelity to his wife.
2) EA's online policy bullshit which will begin with this game.
For those two reasons (and probably others) everyone should boycott the game to help send a message that this stuff is unacceptable.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: UncleBob on May 22, 2010, 09:40:04 PM
Those two reasons are about three galaxies apart from one another. Boycotting the game for those reasons will not send any message to EA.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Chozo Ghost on May 22, 2010, 09:48:47 PM
Those two reasons are about three galaxies apart from one another. Boycotting the game for those reasons will not send any message to EA.
Yeah, but the more people who boycott the better chances it will have of being successful. I don't think it matters why people boycott, just so long as they do.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: UncleBob on May 22, 2010, 09:54:23 PM
Those two reasons are about three galaxies apart from one another. Boycotting the game for those reasons will not send any message to EA.
Yeah, but the more people who boycott the better chances it will have of being successful. I don't think it matters why people boycott, just so long as they do.
Not if EA doesn't know why people are boycotting - then they won't know what to in order to fix things. Will dropping Tiger from the cover bring sales back in line? Will dropping the online pass make people happy? Will they need to do both?
Hell, maybe the online pass will encourage enough people to buy new to make up for those who don't buy because Tiger is naughty...
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Toruresu on May 22, 2010, 10:07:01 PM
Yeah. You got me UncleBob, I don't play sports games!
Guess you are right, as the plan wouldn't work.
Boycotting a single game won't work either, you'd have to boycott EA completely for this to have a chance. Even then, I honestly understand what EA is trying to do here, and it's just pure and simple business. I'm more interested to see what Nintendo does themselves.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: that Baby guy on May 23, 2010, 01:31:41 AM
The solution to this one's pretty simple if you ask me.
With the pre-$10 plan, gamers bought a new game with the idea that they'd own the content inside the game and would be licensing the use of the servers. The problem with this idea is that the licensing agreement was only meant to be between the original consumer and whomever maintains servers online. Potentially, because the original sale accounted for one single consumer, the publisher/server maintainer could lose money on server costs. In order to account for server costs in a one-time "New" retail purchase would mean the cost would have to increase.
The method EA is using, though, raises the costs to most consumers who buy the game new. How? When these consumers sell the game they purchased, it's now worth $10 less than typical resale is currently, since the person buying the re-sold game, then having to pay $10 directly to EA for the online capabilities.
Why not just cut out the online costs from the initial price of the game? Make new games $10 cheaper, offer a limited trial for online, like they do now for the used purchasers of the game, and then charge everyone $10 for access to online game modes?
Of course, that assumes EA isn't requiring an online connection for content on the disc, and genuinely uses the money to provide online services, but it's a compromise that would be beneficial to most everyone if that's the case. New games are cheaper for those who don't game online, the value of the game decreases in a proportionate manner, unlike with EA's current system. In addition, GameStop can continue their practices as-is, and EA will earn money for their online services.
Not to mention, it'll cut out the whole shady "End-User License Agreement" stuff the consumer isn't able to see clearly before purchasing the game. I'd call the idea win-win-win or win-win-win-win, since I win for having come up with it.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 23, 2010, 02:49:39 AM
I don't think you were the first one to come up with that idea, but I'm not gonna review the 3 threads this topic was discussed in to see who posted it last time I read it.
and part of the perk of buying it new is that you don't have to do anything extra, so you are getting the 1st purchasers convenience. 2nd and/or non purchasers don't get that convenience and have to take the extra step to get what they want.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: UncleBob on May 23, 2010, 09:43:13 AM
I asked about that - no one seemed to comment on it.
>"The method EA is using, though, raises the costs to most consumers who buy the game new."
EA does not and has never guaranteed or been responsible for the pricing of used game. EA often does several things that hurt the pricing of their used titles (releasing new versions, cutting the prices of the older versions, etc., etc) and no one complains about that.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: vudu on May 23, 2010, 10:23:51 AM
Lowering the value of reselling the game after you bought it is another nice side effect of the whole thing. More people will hang onto the game since it's not worth as much so less used copies will be available for purchase. Consumers who might have received $25 for the game would now only get $15--at that price a number of them will hang onto it.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Mop it up on May 23, 2010, 03:31:36 PM
Why not just cut out the online costs from the initial price of the game? Make new games $10 cheaper, offer a limited trial for online, like they do now for the used purchasers of the game, and then charge everyone $10 for access to online game modes?
That seems like a better way to go about it. I know the main reason I don't like EA's current idea is because it seems devious; if it were similar to what you described then I wouldn't have an issue with it.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 31, 2010, 06:03:29 PM
DOMINOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooe effect
Treyarch: Pre-Owned is a problem (http://www.mcvuk.com/news/39199/Treyarch-Pre-owned-is-a-problem) Treyarch is the newest CoD house, and it's been reported that that is all they will be working on for the foreseeable future
Quote
CoD: Black Ops developer says it’s keeping a close eye on the DLC code movement
With multiplayer a key selling point for Black Ops, Treyarch community manager Josh Olin has told MCV that Activision and Treyarch would not be employing a similar system to that of THQ’s UFC Undisputed 2010 and EA’s recently announced Online Pass.
However, the practise of supplying a one-time code to unlock the online multiplayer is one that intrigues Treyarch.
“We don’t plan to do anything like that for Black Ops, but it is interesting to see how that’s going to work out for EA and THQ,” says Olin. “It’s no secret that pre-owned game sales do pose problems for developers and publishers, so it’ll be interesting how well that works to mitigate that issue.”
It’s one of many decisions that face Treyarch in the six months that lie between now and the launch of Black Ops.
Given the recent headline-grabbing news surrounding Infinity Ward, the departure of former bosses Jason West and Vince Zampella and the subsequent exodus of key personnel, all eyes are currently on Treyarch to help safeguard the future of the Call of Duty franchise.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Stratos on May 31, 2010, 06:12:44 PM
I never hear the film industry complain about how used sales are hurting their bottom line.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: TJ Spyke on May 31, 2010, 06:30:47 PM
People are more willing to buy new movies since almost all of them are $20 or less (they try and screw consumers by charging $30 or more for Blu-ray Disc versions). I only know of 2 stores in my area that even sell used DVDs, one is a pawnshop and the other is a local game store. I bet the used game market would almost disappear if all games were $30 or less.
Requiring a code to play online is a terrible decision and I hope that all games that do this suffer with lower sales. Just stick to something stupid like the Mass Effect series does with its Cerberus Network. When will these moronic publishers realize that the REASON used sales have gone up in the last few years is because the average game is now $60? If game prices were lower, more people would buy new. Think of car sales as an example, used car sales are typically more than double the amount of new cars sold for this very reason. Maybe these publishers should take their heads out of their asses and see that lowering game prices back down to $50 (or even lower) would decrease used sales and increase new sales. I know that some people would still buy used, but more people would be willing to buy new (especially if it's a game they don't know if they will like it).
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: UncleBob on May 31, 2010, 09:03:29 PM
People are more willing to buy new movies since almost all of them are $20 or less (they try and screw consumers by charging $30 or more for Blu-ray Disc versions). I only know of 2 stores in my area that even sell used DVDs, one is a pawnshop and the other is a local game store. I bet the used game market would almost disappear if all games were $30 or less.
Yup. There's no market for used GBA and DS games at all.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Chozo Ghost on June 01, 2010, 04:56:25 AM
I think Treyarch did a fantastic job with COD WAW. I actually like that game much better than MW2, if you can believe it.
It would REALLY suck if Activision drives them into the ground like they did to Infinity Ward...
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 01, 2010, 01:43:01 PM
BUY TIGER WOODS PGS TOUR 11 WII It looks like an awesome gorf game.
BUY IT NEW Cuz I don't want to wait for your ass to buy it after the 2012 Version is announced.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: vudu on June 01, 2010, 02:44:51 PM
People are more willing to buy new movies since almost all of them are $20 or less (they try and screw consumers by charging $30 or more for Blu-ray Disc versions). I only know of 2 stores in my area that even sell used DVDs, one is a pawnshop and the other is a local game store. I bet the used game market would almost disappear if all games were $30 or less.
Yup. There's no market for used GBA and DS games at all.
The "problem" isn't the price of games, it's the nature of them.
Most people play most games once and they're done with them. There are always exceptions for your favorite games, but generally speaking once you sink between 10 to 100 hours into a game you're done with it and you're not coming back. At this point you have a hunk of plastic sitting on your shelf that's worth between $10 and $30 and unless you're a collector there's really no good reason for you to keep it.
With movies you generally don't have that problem. Movies that you would consider buying are ones that you like and would want to watch multiple times. They last between 1.5 to 3 hours, they're social (meaning you can watch them with friends or family), and they lend themselves to multiple viewings.
And if you don't think a movie is worth owning (or you're just not sure yet) you can easily rent the movie for a nominal fee. You rent it, watch it that night (or that week) and return it.
Oftentimes it's not economical to rent games because they take much longer to complete. You can rent some games if they're short or if you just want to try them out, but if you want to play an RPG or an online shooter that will be the game to play until the next best things comes along in a couple months it'll easily cost you more than it would to just buy the game.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Chozo Ghost on June 01, 2010, 03:09:50 PM
I don't buy DVDs because most movies I would only want to watch once (if even that). Video games are pretty much the same way. There have actually been many games I bought and wasted money on that were utter rubbish and I may have spent $20-$50 on but it ended up being a huge waste because I hated the game and couldn't stand more than an hour of it. But that was then. I've learned from that ad now I just buy games cheap or rent them or whatever.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: broodwars on June 04, 2010, 12:40:52 PM
Well, now SEGA's joined the fray in stating that if EA's Online Pass system is successful that they might adopt a similar system as well to combat piracy and used games. This is a huge deal because Online Play is such a major feature in Sega games...oh wait...
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: TJ Spyke on June 05, 2010, 02:17:00 PM
EA, THQ, Sega, I think Namco Bandai has said they are are looking at it too. This is why I am glad that early reports show that UFC Undisputed 2010 sales are lower than expected so far. Hopefully enough gamers skip out on these games that the publishers realize how stupid it was and that it will not help business.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: broodwars on June 05, 2010, 02:25:20 PM
EA, THQ, Sega, I think Namco Bandai has said they are are looking at it too. This is why I am glad that early reports show that UFC Undisputed 2010 sales are lower than expected so far. Hopefully enough gamers skip out on these games that the publishers realize how stupid it was and that it will not help business.
In all fairness, THQ's version of the Online Pass is significantly worse than EA's, as there's no Trial period before you have to buy the pass so that screws over renters.
Title: Re: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...
Post by: Shaymin on June 05, 2010, 07:08:04 PM
Doing it: ~ EA ~ THQ
Considering it: ~ Activision (specifically, Treyarch) ~ Ubisoft ~ Sega
