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

[Pale]

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.

[Guitar Smasher]

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.

[broodwars]

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.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

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?

[Guitar Smasher]

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.

[ControlerFleX]

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.

[UncleBob]

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.

[ControlerFleX]

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.

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...

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

[Ian Sane]

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.

[ControlerFleX]

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.

[Morari]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

EA is in no way restricting the sale of used games.

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......

[Stratos]

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.

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.

[Ian Sane]

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.

[Guitar Smasher]

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?

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

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.

[Mop it up]

This, like DLC and digital distribution, seem like nothing more than ways for companies to circumvent consumer rights. No good can come of this.

[Guitar Smasher]

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.

[BlackNMild2k1]

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.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

What more needs to be said?

[Guitar Smasher]

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.

[UncleBob]

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?

[Shaymin]

It's not just EA looking to stick it to us, though.

Destructoid: UFC Undisputed 2010 requires code to play online

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.

[SixthAngel]

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, like DLC and digital distribution, seem like nothing more than ways for companies to circumvent consumer rights. No good can come of this.

Its all about control.  EA wants it.  They will use it to wring every last dollar from you.

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"