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

[ControlerFleX]

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.

[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.

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?

[Guitar Smasher]

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.

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.

[ControlerFleX]

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

[Toruresu]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

[UncleBob]

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.

[Chozo Ghost]

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.

[UncleBob]

Those two reasons are about three galaxies apart from one another.  Boycotting the game for those reasons will not send any message to EA.

[Chozo Ghost]

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.

[UncleBob]

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...

[Toruresu]

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.

[that Baby guy]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

[UncleBob]

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.

[vudu]

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.

[Mop it up]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

DOMINOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooe effect

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

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.

[Stratos]

I never hear the film industry complain about how used sales are hurting their bottom line.

[TJ Spyke]

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).

[UncleBob]

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.

[Chozo Ghost]

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...

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

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.

[vudu]

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.

[Chozo Ghost]

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.