EA Does it Again

[Legendairy314]

It's probably to stop all the more intelligent people from just renting the games then returning them a week later when they've gotten their fill.

 

[TPiddy]

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.

I'm thinking you completely missed the point.... I bought the game NEW. I buy 90% of my games NEW. I have the online access. I disagree with the POLICY. Why?

1. Other companies are able to run servers for their games for YEARS without charging those who bought used for it.

2. Where do you draw the line? Is it when my used copy of the game is only worth $5 because someone is going to have pay $25 to unlock features B, C and D? At that point why not just change to a subscription-based model? If you're 'OK' with this policy you're just giving them carte-blanche to go subscription based for EVERY game with an online component, because that's where this is all heading anyways.

 

[Hawknight]

Here's my counter to the argument about the costs of server maintenance.

The original buyer has technically already payed for that. It's not like there's three people playing off the disk so the servers aren't being stressed by people they're not expecting. It's one person playing with one copy of the game. The original buyer payed for those online services and the maintenance to the servers for him/her self as long as they owned the game. When they sell it/trade it in, the servers are no longer being stressed by them. If a new person buys it, it's just like the original buyer had taken a long break from the game. It's only one person using the service and it's not like the company was going to get more money from the original buyer to begin with.

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

Actually, it's like buying a used book and finding that half the pages have been ripped out. A few bent pages won't prevent you from enjoying the book just as much as if it were new. Missing pages could kill the whole experience.

 

[Keava]

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.

Gotta love demagogy and populism, the good part is reality always catches up.

You see that person decided to use their license to play online already, it was their choice. They knew the risk and they knew it's a one-time code. They used the service and are entitled to it for as long as the company carries it already. When trading their game they can as well include their account and password to it so the next buyer may make a full use of it. That would be fair. That would be the situation you are actually talking about.
But hey, they don't. Means they keep their right to use the service.

That is why you have to pay for it. They didn't loose their right to use the service despite selling you the game disc. You just got ripped off. Welcome to the real world. They can go buy another copy, used, and still be able to play online. See?

To use the car analogy everyone seems to love. Imagine if a guy who sells you his used car kept the papers for it, or even keys for it. Is it car producers fault? Of course in real life he will give you those with the sale, but somehow when selling game they refuse to give you their account.
Blame the guy you buy from, not the publisher. Simple.

 

[Mimssy]

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

Actually, it's like buying a used book and finding that half the pages have been ripped out. A few bent pages won't prevent you from enjoying the book just as much as if it were new. Missing pages could kill the whole experience.

If you know you can't get all the content with a used game, pony up the extra $10 and buy it new rather than complain after the fact. It seems simple enough. You could also easily wait a few months for it to go on sale.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

Solid business model and all but you've already made your money on the wooden figurines. Your revenue hasn't been effected at all. Imagine if all companies are trying to do what EA is and other companies are starting to do. Second hand clothing shops selling used jeans don't have to give Levi Strauss a cut of their profits because they sold a pair of their 5 year old jeans. It's pretty much stepping directly on the balls of the American dream.

I think you are missing a big part of the business thing. Every figurine the guy re-sells is a figurine you don't sell, it's therefore considered a loss, since there was a potential customer for your product but instead giving his money to you he decided to give it to the guy who just makes money off -your- work.

Second hand clothes are also a different thing. First of all clothes wear off eventually, loose colours, stretch, are more likely to rip over time etc.My boots came with 3 year warranty, means that if there is something wrong with them during those 3 years i can return to the shop i bought them in and get a new pair in exchange.
You are, in most cases getting a product inferior to what you could buy from the retailer.

Games don't really suffer from such issues. A game is a game, as long as the disc is not damaged to the point where it's unreadable you receive exactly same product. Especially these days when we don't get those big cardboard boxes with 200 page thick manuals and fancy maps or gadgets included.

Ok so what YOU are missing here is that the guy selling second hand figurines has NO MARKET if the manufacturer doesn't get his cut first. In essence, the manufacturer controls BOTH markets. If the second hand guy sells a figurine, you do not lose money. The figurine already made you the profit you projected to make in the first place. What you are confused about here is the "what if" sale. What if the second hand market didn't exist? Would the consumer be forced to buy new? Well, You are wrong there. The people who are going to buy second hand, do so because the product is too expensive new. Therefore, by the same "what if" logic, the manufacturer is NOT losing a sale he would never of had in the first place. Second hand stores also drive up the sales of new items not yet available at the second hand stores. The developer can lower it's prices to make the used games market less profitable, that would reward the consumer for buying new and lower the sales of used games.

What we have is a company being greedy. With how fast games are turned over I can see trying to reach some sort of agreement with second hand stores, such as a limit to when second hand copies of new games can hit shelves. Such as a 180 day time frame from release to allow used sales. That I would get behind and support. But making a game unplayable by anyone other the original owner hurts both the consumer and the publisher.

 

[lee1287]

Game any good? The demo was so Diffrent from NHL 10. Not a bad thing, but, ehh.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

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.

Here the original seller should reduce his own prices to remain competitive. If he puts his price down to $4 as well, then people will be more likely to buy from him as most people prefer a new item to a used one.
He then forces the other guy to lower his prices, probably to the point it becomes unprofitable for him to remain in business.
The game companies refuse to lower their prices however, because they are greedy.
Instead, they punish the people who are trying to get a better deal.
And what a lot of people seem to forget is that without used games sales the high street stores selling the games won;t be able to remain in business, meaning that either the whole industry will have to move into the realms of digital distribution (this will likely lose them a number of customers as many people don't like digital distribution) or the industry goes out of business because it has no way to distribute its products en masse.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Now thats just silly.

 

[Linkassassin360]

It surprises me how a company so out of touch with its fans could do so well. Why does it always seem that when I think about greed suits trying to press gamers for every dime, I think of EA? Vavle never had to penny pinch to get where it is... and their games are always great :/
Sorry for the rant, EA just puts me in a bad mood becuase if more companies were like them.....

 

[X.P.C]

Basically, all they are looking for is money.

 

[AMMO Kid]

same with the Battlefield Bad Company 2 VIP code. They want your money.

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

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.

I don't see a problem with the online codes for the sports games, personally. I think, if anything, it will cut down on the number of used games taking up shelf space at Gamestops. Plus, they are just trying to make money on used games sales that they don't get. Remember, when you buy a used game, none of that money goes to the dev or publisher. They are trying to get a piece of what hey deserve. I do agree with the games being copy and pasted shit year after year, however the hockey games are usually the best.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

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.

Again: Why are you surprised that a company is trying to make money? To a business, there is no such thing as too much money. L4D may have a different business model, especially since Valve owns Steam. It's not altruism. It's business.

 

[Altorin]

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.

How is that different? Bioware doesn't do multiplayer (not including that mmo thing) so they don't have multiplayer to use as incentive to buy new. You say Bioware is doing the right thing when its almost identical to EAs plan, I really don't see the harm in this. Buying second hand the developers don't see the money,some of that money is used to maintain servers etc, if you buy used really you aren't helping maintain the servers you will be using when you think about it its really not that big a deal, want the feature buy new, if you don't care, don't.

Uhhh, Bioware's plan IS EA's plan. Mass Effect 2 was published by EA.