EA Does it Again

[TPiddy]

Could you just imagine if other used markets started doing this? Used cars? used furniture?

Do explain that, other than sticking it into your rant for the sake of a point it's ridiculous.
How would they restrict a used piece of furniture or car?

Could you imagine if your car's navigation system was disabled if you bought the car used? Or the car alarm? It's ridiculous. So many other companies support their titles, even the used ones.

 

[TPiddy]

Interesting development could be that the gameshops themselves pay the money needed for online activation to the developers. The gamer doesn't have to put in the effort to do his own activation.

Now this is an interesting idea, but the problem is that the game shops would likely just charge for online activation. There would be no legislation to prevent them from selling games without it, so it becomes an extra feature they could then charge for. May as well have the developer charge for it rather than the game shop.

I still stand by the fact that major titles like Halo and L4D can support their servers and the like without putting in any used game cock-blocks, but EA feels like it needs to. If companies like Microsoft and Valve don't feel that they have to, why do companies like EA and Activision feel this way? Greed. That's why.

 

[TPiddy]

If the retailer didn't inform you of such an issue, take it up with them.

EA's motives and changes have been around for quite some time now, it's frankly old news.

Take it up with the store, ask them why they didn't tell you. And if the game had a label on it (like in the store "GAME" in the UK) that states DLC/online content might not all be there on a used copy, then that's your own fault.

I bought a new copy. I just don't like the principle behind it and that's why I started this convo.

 

[infinity_turtles]

No, but if the guy is setting up shop right next to you, chances are anyone who'd buy a new one from you is going to buy from him first.

Your failing to consider all those people who think your way overpriced before they ever even saw his store.

No I'm not. I'm saying that making almost no sales while he has used stock is absurd. Because that's the situation. Sure, people who wouldn't buy at my price may buy at his, but almost noone will buy from me while he has stock, regardless of whether they'd buy at mine otherwise. That's the problem. While there are used games in the store, almost no new games get sold.

Publishers would jump at a deal like that, but retail stores would never agree to it. Which is sort of the problem. This is mainly an issue between publishers and retailers. Because selling used products is not a problem until' you start selling them right next to the new ones.

But what they're doing now is demonizing the wrong people, we buy used because either we don't trust/like the quality of the product enough to shell out for the full price, we don't have the cash to pay full price or it is the only copy availiable. We aren't deliberately trying to take money from the developer we are just doing what is best for our financial situation and attacking us for it is unfair when its the retailers stealing their money.

See, I don't think most people are demonizing people who buy used. Buying used is smart from a consumers point of view. We're only pointing out that a company has the right to not offer services related to a product if you're not giving that company money. EA isn't gutting the game, they're denying access to the servers they pay to maintain. Really crappy servers, that not having access to is probably less frustrating than having access.

 

[TPiddy]

What is the distinction between rewarding new and punishing used?

If I buy NHL11 new, I am rewarded by having FREE multiplayer. If I buy Dragon Age used, I am punished by not having additional DLC.

If you reward one group of people with an exlucsive benefit, you are inherently punishing anyone who chooses not to be among the rewarded group... But since it's the person's choice whether to be rewarded or punished, this argument loses all meaning.

The difference here is that if you buy any EA project $10 game used, you can still get full functionality by chipping in $10 to the developper instead of expecting a free ride on their service which they need to pay money to keep running and updated.

Anyone who thinks that EA is being greedy by expecting to get revenue (read: at least $10) off every game sold, while also being too cheap to pay the extra $5-10 to buy the game new is a hypocrit, plain and simple.

I think the distinction should be drawn between what is included in the game and what is deemed extra content. You cannot claim that online multiplayer is extra content because it's become almost integral to the gameplay. That's like calling online multiplayer 'extra' for CoD. when 70-80% of the game's development goes into the online component it's an integral part of the game.

More companies should give free access codes for DLC as rewards for new game sales. It's easy, and it works. Worst-case scenario, someone buys it used, and then they have to fork out for the DLC. But cutting out the heart of a game to spite used game buyers is just wrong.

 

[reyttm4]

Maybe you're looking at it the wrong way, after all, no game should really be based mostly around the multi player and therefore let the single player suffer. Think of it like, you bought the single player, the true meat of the game, and that the multi player is a reward, simply to add on playability.

 

[Mimssy]

Because they can. It's their right, and frankly i support it. Ignoring everything else, why do people that buy used games feel like they deserve to be treated like any other customer when they don't want to give their money to the publisher/developer? Go complain to those you buy used games from.

Agreed wholeheartedly. That's like buying a used book and being pissed that some pages are bent.

 

[TPiddy]

You do realize that that is exactly what they are doing at EA, right? Look at Bad Company 2. If you buy that new you get codes to unlock things. Same will go with Medal of Honor. They are only doing online activation for sports games to get people to buy new.

Also, BIOWARE GAMES ARE PUBLISHED BY EA.

Yes... I know all of this. The point I'm making is why are they being dicks about their sports titles? They put the same damn game out every year with 1-2 new features. Their sports titles are probably among the biggest rip-offs in gaming (For the record I skipped on NHL 10, bought 09 though), and yet they still feel the need to be dicks like this. I think part of it is the developers. While Bioware games are PUBLISHED by EA, I'm sure Bioware has a lot of say in what exactly gets locked / unlocked / given as a reward.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

The bottom line is why should you get to pay less and get the exact same thing as someone who paid for it new, without even waiting a significant time period.

Yes, this is part of the problem with the software industry and it does drive a big stake through the comparisons to cars.

Since champions of Used games often cite the economy, isn't better for you economically to not buy the game at all? Or, wait a short while (usually a year) and get the Game of the Year edition for half price AND several DLCs bundled in? If the game wasn't popular enough to warrant a Game of the Year edition, then after a year it will be significantly cheaper anyways.

Sports games come out EVERY year. They typically have no discounts or GOTY's. And they add more and more features designed for online. In this particular case they have several different online leagues they are maintaining. They are basically taking away the option to play it offline local because you're missing out on more than half the game's features. When a game's selling point becomes online play (CoD, Halo and now sports) it's not really fair to sell the game and then charge more for the online feature.

Imagine buying CoD used and only getting to play the 5 hour single player offline experience. You'd probably feel pretty ripped off. Even if you did have to fork over an extra $5 - $10 for online access it's a total cash grab. If Halo, LBP, CoD L4D and other game franchises can run servers for their games without cock blocking used game owners, why can't EA?

Halo is a Microsoft exclusive currently, and therefore you are required to have an XBox Live subscription. Considering Microsoft directly owns Bungie right now (at least the part that develops Halo), it amounts to the same thing.

Little Big Planet is from an indie developer, who wanted to push the "Create" and "Share" parts of their philosophy.

CoD and L4D actually have very few servers and are mostly done with Peer to Peer connections, so maintenance is relatively cheap. They also maintain popularity for much longer than one season.


Sports games are a different breed because they crash in price at the end of that game's sports season (fever dies, and everyone knows a new version will be out in a couple months so they wait for that rather than buy the old version if they don't have it already). Developers and publishers have a very tight window in which to make a profit off these games. Used games can drastically cut this already tight window down further.

Why is everyone so surprised that a company wants to make a profit off their games?

Look at it this way, if a title doesn't profit, why should they continue making them?

 

[Plurralbles]

I dont' see the problem. Used game stores tend to sell their almost brand new games fr only a few dollars below the game's price yet they get every bit of profit from it. Retail and the developers and the publishers need to share the money they get from the new game sale. So making you pay $10 to get teh full game is cutting into what the used games people can sell it for. They can't sell it for only $5 below, they must go to at least $10 and even then convenience can keep customers away from them. I like it. By the time people who bought the game new are willing to sell to the used games places the publishers have already made their money and in a perfect world, lowered the price of the game themselves or in EA's case, shut down teh servers for the game.

 

[Orekoya]

They simply want some money from the used games industry, which is, in effect, legal piracy. In fact its usually worse than piracy, seeing as if you buy a used game you're very unlikely to later buy a new version of said game.

Yeah, they don't maintain servers at all... it's peer to peer. They maintain some for stats tracking and the like, but they have plenty of DLC options for additional revenue streams. They're effectively shutting out the people who buy used from even accessing or needing some of their DLC, cutting off their own customer base.

But its not their customer base. They've never seen a cent from the people who buy used games. Calling them a customer of EA would be a very long stretch.

So... wait, when they buy DLC stuff, they aren't buying that from EA? I'm confused. Where are they buying that from?

 

[EmoDan]

just think if second hand games didnt exist they could lower the prices of new as they wouldnt have to offset the lost revenue


also if they did lower the price of the games then the second hand game seller would just underprice them
its the same thing you get in mmorpgs with auction houses dont you just get annoyed when people undercut your crafts

 

[spiritbx]

It's because EA are greedy fucks, Even though they allready have a ton of money.

Tell me how is it greedy to want people to buy your product from you? o.o

Imagine a situation where you are carving a little figurines out of wood. You sell them for 5$. Now next to you another guy sets up his store, he buys off the figurines others bought from you but don't want them any more for 2$ and re-sells them for 4$, cutting your revenue by a noticeable margin.

Im sure you would be mighty happy about it and congratulate that guy for his marketing sense and brilliance in setting up successful business.

simple its greedy because they charge twice for the same product, this is like selling cars, each time you pay taxes... for the same product... over and over, its kinda unfair, but at least taxes go to your gvt who will (hopefully) use the money to make your country better, but ea just wants more money to make more game to get more money

cuz the charge isnt just for one person, its for every other person who will buy it used, so the same game could makes them "thechnicaly" thousands of $$$ by making every person buy the rights for online play, even though the person before DOESNT GET HIS MONEY BACK so you just payed for online play on a product you can't play anymore, so in the end everyone pays for online play, but ONLY ONE person can actualy use it.

and if you say they "lose money", thats not true, one person bought the game, one person plays it, 2 people buy the game 2 people play it, they made their money since only one person per game bought can play, and by making you pay for something someone else already bought, all they are doing is saying " i dont want people to PLAY our games i just want people to PAY ME MONEY, thus, in the end they are greedy because they think about making money other than letting people enjoy the game that was already payed for.

 

[Keava]

Sports games come out EVERY year. They typically have no discounts or GOTY's. And they add more and more features designed for online. In this particular case they have several different online leagues they are maintaining. They are basically taking away the option to play it offline local because you're missing out on more than half the game's features. When a game's selling point becomes online play (CoD, Halo and now sports) it's not really fair to sell the game and then charge more for the online feature.

Wait wait wait wait. Who charges you extra for online feature? If you buy retail, new copy you have it included. If you buy used, it's your loss, you are not a publisher/developers customer if you buy it second hand. They owe you nothing.
You, as a buyer have a choice. Buy a fresh copy and enjoy the game, or be cheapskate and live with the fact the producer has full right to ignore your whining.

Games aren't even close to being so expensive as some try to make them. If you really want a specific game it's easy to save those 10-15 bucks extra over a week period, im pretty sure many spends more daily on silly little pleasures, a little bit of good will is all that's needed. I highly doubt those few $ make a difference between life and death for most of you, and if so you have bigger problems than being able to afford a game.

I just don't get why so many of you people feel like you deserve to be handed everything on a silver platter just because you exist. Want something - work for it. It's how the world works, sorry to disappoint. Eventually become a politician and create a law that grants every citizen a right to 3 new games every month if it bothers you so much.

 

[TPiddy]

Publishers would jump at a deal like that, but retail stores would never agree to it. Which is sort of the problem. This is mainly an issue between publishers and retailers. Because selling used products is not a problem until' you start selling them right next to the new ones.

But what they're doing now is demonizing the wrong people, we buy used because either we don't trust/like the quality of the product enough to shell out for the full price, we don't have the cash to pay full price or it is the only copy availiable. We aren't deliberately trying to take money from the developer we are just doing what is best for our financial situation and attacking us for it is unfair when its the retailers stealing their money.

Bingo! Give this guy a cookie. It's not the 4-5 month old, $10-20 off used sales that hurt devs, it's the 2 week old $5 off games that do.

 

[TPiddy]

That's the problem. While there are used games in the store, almost no new games get sold.

Stats to back up this claim?

 

[TPiddy]

Maybe you're looking at it the wrong way, after all, no game should really be based mostly around the multi player and therefore let the single player suffer. Think of it like, you bought the single player, the true meat of the game, and that the multi player is a reward, simply to add on playability.

Too bad that's not the way games are being made nowadays. RPG's and action platformers are pretty much the only genres whose focus remains offline single player anymore.

 

[razer17]

So, Just dropped my money for EA Sports' NHL 11 last night... lo and behold, there is an online activation code on the back of the manual. Seems like if you buy the game used you are locked out of online play.

Why do publishers have to be restrictive instead of rewarding? At least with Bioware, if you bought new you just got more stuff, DLC you would have had to pay for, maps, etc.... People should be rewarded for buying new, not punished for buying used.

If they don't lock multiplayer, what do they do? their isn't much incentive to buy sports games new other than multiplayer. They need to put their Project Ten Dollar in somehow. Also, according to research, only a fairly small percentage of people who buy used games actually go online. If you save $10 on a game by buying used, where the developers and publishers gain no money, it's only right for the company to atleast try to make a little bit of money.

 

[TPiddy]

Halo is a Microsoft exclusive currently, and therefore you are required to have an XBox Live subscription. Considering Microsoft directly owns Bungie right now (at least the part that develops Halo), it amounts to the same thing.

Little Big Planet is from an indie developer, who wanted to push the "Create" and "Share" parts of their philosophy.

CoD and L4D actually have very few servers and are mostly done with Peer to Peer connections, so maintenance is relatively cheap. They also maintain popularity for much longer than one season.

Sports games are a different breed because they crash in price at the end of that game's sports season (fever dies, and everyone knows a new version will be out in a couple months so they wait for that rather than buy the old version if they don't have it already). Developers and publishers have a very tight window in which to make a profit off these games. Used games can drastically cut this already tight window down further.

Why is everyone so surprised that a company wants to make a profit off their games?

Look at it this way, if a title doesn't profit, why should they continue making them?

First of all, EA profits haven't been a problem for a long time now, especially with their sports titles. This is greed, not survival. Secondly, L4D has dedicated servers. It's an option you can choose when finding a game. FREE dedicated servers through both 360 and PC. And why is that? Because they know the game is being sold with the multiplayer in mind, and Valve aren't dicks.

EA built the sports game model, they only have themselves to blame for what's happened to it and now they're trying to milk it for everything it's worth.