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

[ControlerFleX]

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
 

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???

[Stratos]

I've always been against extra charges for online. It's why I refuse to pay for an MMO or XBox Live.

[TJ Spyke]

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).

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

[UncleBob]

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.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

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.

[broodwars]

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.

[broodwars]

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?

[TJ Spyke]

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.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

"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!

[UncleBob]

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?

[broodwars]

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.

[TJ Spyke]

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).

[vudu]

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 ....

[BlackNMild2k1]

It's simple and to the point.

I'm surprised that some people still don't get it though.

[UncleBob]

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?

[broodwars]

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.

[UncleBob]

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.

[broodwars]

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.

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.

[Pale]

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.

[broodwars]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

^that is a very good point.

[ControlerFleX]

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.

^that is a very good point.

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.....

[Pale]

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.

[vudu]

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?