Topic: EA plans to stick it to da man...or us...

[UncleBob]

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.

[ControlerFleX]

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"!

[UltimatePartyBear]

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.

[Ian Sane]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

......

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.

[Ian Sane]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

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)
 

[Morari]

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!

[UncleBob]

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?

[Ymeegod]

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.


 
 

[ControlerFleX]

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.

Like I said...........

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.

[SixthAngel]

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).

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Incorporate half-hour trial windows per day, for borrower types =D

[broodwars]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

looks like that's already been taken care of

Do I need an unique Online Pass for every user on my console?
 No.  One Online Pass will give online access to multiple users logged  into the console where the Online Pass was first activated (subject to  the console manufacturer’s and EA online terms of service).
 
 Also, the user that activated the Online Pass will be allowed to access  online features on other consoles (of the same manufacturer) by logging  into the same account credentials that they used when they enabled the  Online Pass.

p.s. I also wonder what they are gonna do for rental places.
$3 added to rental price for 5 day online pass?

wonder how this affects Gamefly and the already sinking Blockbuster if it takes off.

I guess this question has been answered too.

Do I need to purchase an Online Pass when I rent a game?
Each Xbox LIVE gamertag or Sony PSN ID is entitled   to a free 7 day trial per title.  Beyond that, users will be required   to redeem or purchase Online Pass access.

[Ian Sane]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

[Ymeegod]

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. 

[ControlerFleX]

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.

[Ian Sane]

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!"

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

[Guitar Smasher]

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.

[vudu]

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.

[UncleBob]

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*.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

The right to clean his rectum with a cactus.