EA Does it Again

[LogicNProportion]

The real question is:

Why the fuck do you care? Does anyone on the Escapist really care for sports games?

I might have to make a topic about it...

Eh. Fuck it. To each their own.

 

[TPiddy]

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.

Not surprised... but how far is too far? Do we just let this slide until we're charged hourly for gaming?

 

[TPiddy]

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.

This doesn't fly because the EA accounts are not transferable. Not to mention the personal information that would be shared if they were transferable.

 

[TPiddy]

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

Yeah I'm definitely enjoying it so far, there's just more fun to be had and better physics. It doesnt' feel as cheap as it once was. My only complaint is that they are shifting the focus back to single player. Anyone can tell you that sports are a multiplayer thing.

 

[TPiddy]

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.

The key difference is in what they're making you pay the extra $10 for. In Bioware, used owners can choose not to get the DLC that comes with the new game and they're out a playable character and some decent side missions. In NHL, if you buy used and choose not to pay the extra, you're cut off from online multiplayer, probably the KEY selling point of the game. To make Mass Effect like NHL 11, you would have to say that anyone who buys the game used can't access the Normandy.

 

[Nom Pretentieux]

I actually care for this move. It's a really smart way to stop people from buying used, or at least still earning something on your game. I think the way to say it best is that when you buy new, you create royalty payments to the nice gentleman and madammes who created the game for you. When you buy used, you're only paying GameStop.

Seriously, fine, buy used, but just not from fucking GameStop. That place is like McDonalds. It needs to die now.

And don't hate this move. Don't call them greedy. Fuck, I'm betting the person posting this is playing it on an XBOX 360(don't misunderstand me here, this is based on the pure logic that there are more Xbox owners than PS3 owners, ergo the probability is higher)! You're paying the price of a full game yearly to Microsoft just for the privilige of playing ANYTHING online EVER! now THAT's greedy. Don't call someone greedy fucks when they punish your for being a greedy fuck in the first place. That creates an irony that in no way portrays you in a good light.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

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.

Not surprised... but how far is too far? Do we just let this slide until we're charged hourly for gaming?

Really, it depends on us. We are the ones who buy used (despite the fact that until a game is older, Used copies are only $5-$10 cheaper.) and pirate games. That's money out of their pockets, and money that doesn't get reinvested into making games better.

 

[TPiddy]

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.

Not surprised... but how far is too far? Do we just let this slide until we're charged hourly for gaming?

Really, it depends on us. We are the ones who buy used (despite the fact that until a game is older, Used copies are only $5-$10 cheaper.) and pirate games. That's money out of their pockets, and money that doesn't get reinvested into making games better.

Considering that a used copy of a two week old game is for the most part completely indistinguishable from a new copy, how can you blame someone who wants to save $5? The game stores need to make their money too. Everyone complains about the developers losing money, but what about the distribution channels? Surely Future Shop won't go out of business if they lost used game sales, but Gamestop, and even video rental chains would surely go out of business.

And where's the big outcry against rentals? This is complete BS by the publishers who are pushing it. They cry foul that they are losing money on used game sales. Well, if they lowered their prices in the first place, or lowered them after a certain period then used game sales would be less profitable for places like Gamestop.

 

[Fantastic Foxkins]

Only a couple of weeks ago I bought a friend of mine a couple of games for his birthday. I got to the till and the sales person offered me pre-owned versions of the games I had picked up. Seeing as how it was a present I didn't feel right about buying used titles and so I declined. It did shock me how eager they were for me to buy the pre-owned versions; it wasn't that much cheaper then what I was already paying seeing as how they were newish games.

Game must make a lot of money on those type of sales because the buy those games at really cheap prices and sell them on for nearly full price. It made me think who I would rather give money to? The game developers or the shop? For me the answer is obvious, developers every time. I do think it?s a bit of a dick move to cut off content like that but at the same time they are probably losing a lot of money that they deserve. While I don't have problems with used game sales from people trying to shift games they don't use or to make a quick buck because they are skint, I don't like the idea of people making a profit on selling used games.

 

[Fantastic Foxkins]

The real comparison here is: Would you rather give your money to the publisher or the shop?

Except it's really not that simple because that argument fails to take into account royalties.

Yes, it is a dick move. No, they aren't losing money and no they don't deserve to get paid twice for a single copy of the game.

Here's the thing, that copy of the game can only be used by one player at a time and since that copy was purchased new then EA already has been paid for that copy.

I'm in the process of writing a novel and several publishers have shown an interest. Whoever I choose will get a big chunk of whatever money that book makes but for every copy sold I will get money from it. If lots of people bought the book second hand then I am losing out on money. It's true that you get to punish the big corporation who doesn't care for you but you also punish the person making the game.

 

[Fantastic Foxkins]

Most of the money from sales goes to publishers, not developers. It's pretty simple. Most of your contribution via Wal Mart isn't going to the programmer or his co-workers.

We don't know exactly who gets how much money so unless you have figures to back up that statement it's kind of a moot point. Even if for arguments sake that they do get more money then the creators, you're still taking away money from the people that made the game. For every game bought money does go to those programmers and developers.

I am not interested in punishing anyone, EA is though. The fact is, they deserve nothing more than being paid ONE TIME for each ONE copy of a game. If you sell that game to Play N Trade or if you give it to your little sister is none of EA's business nor are they entitled to more money.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to buy used games. If they said that every time a game was resold on, they had to be given a share of that profit then I would be angry. But for online content which they have to use money to keep running then I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to charge people for it. Maybe I just don't care because the online content doesn't bother me anyway. I don't buy a game to play online.

 

[Nom Pretentieux]

It made me think who I would rather give money to? The game developers or the shop? For me the answer is obvious, developers every time.

The real comparison here is: Would you rather give your money to the publisher or the shop?

I really disagree here. Having followed that whole trial thing between ex-Infinity Ward workers and Activision, I have to say that if that is a relatively standard royalty and bonus agreement between the developer and the publisher, then they are actually taking a decent chunk of profits.

Anyways, as I said, if you buy used you're being a greedy fuck. They have a right to be a greedy fuck right back towards you.

 

[Nom Pretentieux]

But for online content which they have to use money to keep running then I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to charge people for it.

See, here's why it makes no sense. If you buy the game new and get online MP for the life of the game disc, what changes when that disc changes hands? The disc is still only allowing one person to play online at a time.

Does it cost more to let another person IN YOUR PLACE play online? No, this is a money grab.

Well, if you care at all about the developer then buy new. Jesus. It's that simple. Just buy new, support the developer. I am NOT saying people shouldn't allow a game to change hands, I am saying that neither YOU nor EA are the ones who should be punished!

The ones who should be punished are Gamestop. They should be forced to pay HUGE amounts of royalties for selling used games. That way they couldn't take up to like 40-50 dollars profit RIGHT IN THEIR POCKETS from delivering the service of taking your game that you bought new, putting it up on a shelf and allowing it to be sold again.

 

[Fantastic Foxkins]

The ones who should be punished are Gamestop. They should be forced to pay HUGE amounts of royalties for selling used games. That way they couldn't take up to like 40-50 dollars profit RIGHT IN THEIR POCKETS from delivering the service of taking your game that you bought new, putting it up on a shelf and allowing it to be sold again.

This is an excellent point.