Et tu EA?

[TehChuckles]

I've slowed down a lot when looking to purchase the "top tier" of gaming culture these days. especially when you take a step back and see that the cheaper games are more fun and less work. nothing angers me more than a bad day on CoD whether it be 4 MW2 or B Ops and when decide to go on Kongregate I actually have FUN for a change. its amazing, there must be some sort of new formula to how much a game is "worth" and how much fun the game actually is.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Think of it as buying a used gameboy, you saved a few bucks but you're missing the battery cover for it.

Heh, best metaphor ever.

Ehh, I thought it made sense ya know? You pay less but you don't get the whole package that nintendo sold, because you bought it from a friend.

I thought it was an apt metaphor, because it's funny and true.

I was reading the thread trying to put my own metaphor in, I was going to say "It's like using a friends WoW account, but bitching about paying subscription fees," but it didn't make much sense.

I agree with you, if you're going to buy something without contributing to the developer, you can't be surprised or outraged when you don't have access to all the features, that's just how things work. Even if the original buyer paid for those features, that's the original buyers purchase, you are the current buyer, and you have not contributed to said company.

Sense good yeah make do huh?

Not really. As I said earlier, if you get a used gameboy in good condition (not hard, as they were built like tanks and there actually are people out there who know how to take care of their stuff) it's going to have everything with the possible exception of the original packaging -- and that was meant to be thrown out. A better metaphor is that you bought a used gameboy, but nintendo has a deal with the seller to rip out the speaker, the headphone jack, and the battery cover, and then only give it back to you if you pay a "small" fee to Nintendo for each of these parts. It's not like you actually need any of those parts to play the games...

Actually that's a really shit metaphor, which is why I didn't quote it.

How so? If you buy the game new, it comes with the DLC -- usually, it's even on the disc, and the only thing you're downloading is an authorization code to use it. When you buy used, the publisher has effectively ripped that content out of the game, and prevented you from using it until you pay them the fee. It's extortion.

Buying the game new, is contributing money to the publisher. You get the extra content.

Buying the game used, is contributing nothing to the publisher. So they charge for the extra content.

Really, why is this so difficult to understand? It sounds like you just want the best of both worlds. Something that's much much cheaper than retail price, with all the content retail price gives.

I'm going to try my hand at an example again (another blizzard onelolol) it will probably be terrible, but it's the same sort of thing.

If a friend buys Warcraft III and uses the code for battlenet, then sells you the original disks, are you entitled to battlenet?

No. You have to buy a battlenet code from blizzard, because the other one is already in use by someone else.

That's actually a pretty terrible example, but it's all I can really think of.

I'm not saying it's the fair, I'm saying it's why it happens.

Besides, 2nd hand games are stupidly cheap anyway, (like $40-50) for new releases. Even if you have to pay another $10 you're still walking away with about $30 profit instead of buying a new game.

It's not that I don't understand that the developer gets no money on a second hand sale; it's that it's irrelevant, because they've already been paid for that copy. When I receive my used copy from the original buyer, he transfers ownership of it to me -- something that even the EULA usually states is okay. In the Blizzard example you gave, yes, I should get Battle.net access. It's not like the other user is going to be using it without his copy of the game. Besides, to correct the metaphor, it would be like buying the Warcraft III Battlechest, and then being locked out of the expansions, which I have discs for, because someone else has already used them. Why do you not see how terrible that is?

Also, if you admit that it's not fair, what are we even arguing about? I haven't once denied that this is happening, in fact I've expressed fears that it would spread, much like $60 PC games did in the wake of Modern Warfare.

[sub]Also, $40-$50 cheap? I never pay more than $20 for a game, and it's not in impulse buy territory until it hits $10 for a new physical copy, $5 for a used physical copy, or $2.50 for a steam game. A $10 DLC is a significant portion of my average cost for a game -- in fact, it's more on its own than I usually spend on a single game.[/sub]

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Oh my god. I think some people on this thread are being paid by EA. OH MY GOD! And the original poster is suspended! Guys, their gonna shut me down next! AUGH there's someone at my door! HE'S GOTTA GUN! HELP! I'M AT 523888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

He's dead. And we will find you too if you speak of this.

ALL HAIL EA

You know, I didn't notice he had been suspended until you mentioned it, but upon looking at the post he was suspended for, he earned it. It started out with an uncensored "FU" and got worse from there. It's a pity, since he and I were actually arguing the same side.

I didn't see that but some of these other guys sound suspicious. Its kinda strange to use words like "The rights of a corporation." That doesn't sound like a normal consumer, that sounds like a brainwashed consumer or someone on EA's payroll.

I think brainwashed consumer is closer to the truth than someone on EA's payroll, if only because the attitude prevalent in this thread is so common on the site as a whole. While I wouldn't consider it beneath EA to plant employees on popular message boards, I wouldn't expect more than one or two per site. It's more likely that these guys watched some video made by someone on EA's (or Activision's) payroll, and were brought over to the dark side. I'm pretty sure the "used games are equivalent to piracy" argument came straight from the mouth of Bobby Kotick.

You just don't get it... you have the same mind-state of the people that pirate games just out of a slightly different reason e.g. being cheap, and there's nothing wrong with that but you have to realize that if you don't buy your game new the publisher doesn't make any money/the developer doesn't make any money/you do not support the games you like/you support whatever 2nd-hand retailer you bought from and increase only their profit/you aren't contributing to a sequel or similar game being made because they see no money from you...

Now EA could go the way of Steam (and they and other publishers might even do that in the future anyway) and not allow you to resell a game at all by putting a one-time-use key into the box that you have to type in once before you play, but that would both lose them customers (the one's that don't go online or don't want to get ripped off for "XBox Live") and it wouldn't exactly help the situation... now you said yourself you buy games on Steam, they do not allow a resale of games... why are you okay with that, but when EA tries to recover some of the lost sales where money went to a third party that has absolutely no involvement with actually making the games and just feeds off of that market you cry "wolf"?

And no, Bobby Kotick isn't actually against Used Sales at all: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/105276-Bobby-Kotick-Is-Ok-with-Used-Game-Sales , that's mostly because he and the other ones on his board seem to think that games are more aking to bars of soap and washing powder than an actual artistic medium.

Other than that I can just quote myself...

Developers/publishers don't have anything against the 2nd hand sale of their product per se, this was happening for damn well years and decades.

What people don't understand is that they're not hating on the customer trying to maybe sell a game to a friend (or give it to him) for a very low price or people selling them on eBay or similar, but that there's an actual problem in a parasitic industry living off the game sales and increasingly devouring more and more of their profits at near to no personal risk whatsoever... impact of which is that they open more and more stores/branches to make even more money, and upon seeing how much success (GameStop) is having in about ~30% of their total profit (being pure profit) coming from used sales and the rest from hardware sales and "other" (which would indicate that used game sales equal upwards of 40% of their total game sales taking hardware and other gadgets aside), other major retailers like Walmart, Amazon and BestBuy are already following suit with more to surely come if the developers don't do anything, united and fast...

Lowering prices won't work, as has already been stated some games DO lower their prices rather quickly (especially in Europe... can't say it for the US, but we don't really have that much of a problem with big-ass retailers fucking over both customers and publishers at the same time here) as said retailers will just lower the demanded buyout and sale price somewhat and be done with it... If they're buying the game for 10-20$ used from someone and either sell it for 45$ or 35$ won't make that much of a difference, as apparently the 5$ difference compared to an actual new product (not enough grasping the point of view of morality in actually wanting to reward developers for making a good game and making sure they do more of them in the future) seems to be enough to entice enough people to grab that copy instead of the "new" one anyway and they STILL make a pure profit of 15-35$ at almost no personal risk or additional costs.

Publishers simply cannot compete with them in any way, seeing as they are the ones paying for the actual game to be made, the marketing, salaries, shipping, legal fees and so on while carrying the risk of a game totally backfiring and flopping not even covering their expenses at the same time while all GameStop has to do is buy a product cheaper and sell the same one at a higher price being able to analyze how good certain things sell and how profitable they'd be bought and sold at a certain price... they're NOT in the same market to be able to compete with each other, so unique keys for each copy (especially the ones with an online component) or a service like Steam are really the only ways to go for them.

As I mentioned before in other threads, "used sales" are actually a lot worse for the publishers in a financial/business sense than piracy could ever be, because the consumers buying a used product indicate that they want to spend money on it (being it 5-10$ cheaper) and actually do it, while pirating something for free will not equal in actual money being transfered and lost to them.
They might even be willing to offer special deals on their games or sell them for a lower price after a time or on special occasions (leaving Activision Blizzard aside, they're just batshit greedy) like they already do with their Steam sales or special prices over the Internet, but there is no way to do that with retail products and a chain like GameStop would still be able to undercut them even then using their "unique business model" of screwing both customers and publishers.

Furthermore, buying software used (especially games) has nothing in common with buying a used TV, car, dishwasher or "whatever" WHATSOEVER.

While there is some software that you'll buy to keep it around, like say Windows, Office or Photoshop you will probably need for working and using it long-term, games are just largely throwaway entertainment products most people play through once (often offering only 6-20 hours of fun) and then either chuck them in a corner or reselling them.

THINK ABOUT IT, 1-2 days after the initial launch you will be able to get used copies of said product cheaper than its original price, and that "launch time" is mostly the only time said developers and publishers will see any money out of their product...ever. You do not buy a TV, car or dishwasher to use it for a day or two and resell it again, and there's always the fear that you'll buy something that will break down soon, is of bad quality or out of date and might need a lot of repairs (where the original dealers usually still make money) or is plain unsanitary when you buy those used that can be omitted from software sales.

You could compare it a lot more with movie and music sales (although both books and music albums take nowhere NEAR the amount of effort, manpower, money and risk it takes to create games), but as has already been said... you can actually pay dozens of different ways for those, buying a one-time-one-person-only theater or concert ticket to watch it once or several times with different people, buying said CD/DVD/BluRay a few months after, paying your cable/radio provider that pays for the rights to the movie for PayTV or watching it with commercial breaks on FreeTV, buying mp3s or movies from Online retailers like iTunes, renting them etc. etc.
It's not the same thing, and chances are said game even cost a lot more to produce sometimes.

About Steam: I'm not happy about the fact that there's no resale, but when you consider most of the games I've bought were $2.50 a piece or less with the rest of them being well under $10, you start to see why I'm willing to accept the drawbacks. As for supporting the industry, well, I support the industry when I find a game I want new for $20 or less. If they aren't willing to meet me half way, I'll find used sellers who will. No dev is going to starve just because I'm a smart consumer who is actually careful with my money.

As for the Bobby Kotick thing, I've explained twice now that it actually came from Penny Arcade, well known industry cheerleaders. I should probably edit that post.

Edit: Wait a minute, I edited it quite a while ago. Why are you still calling me out on something I've already stated was incorrect, in the post that it originally came from?

Edit Edit: And upon reading the article you posted, Bobby Kotick is actually showing some sense there. It has nothing to do with treating games like either soap or an artistic medium; you can resell a painting or a film all you want, and the original artist is entitled to none of that money. I don't usually bring up the painting argument, because there is a big difference between an original and a copy, but then you can resell prints too, and that really is a 1:1 analogy to videogames.

 

[SanguineSymphony]

I'm pretty sure that if you buy the game new you get the online for free.
At least, that's how it was with my last EA multiplayer game.

It is a tactic to get money from people who buy used games.

thank you for summarizing the points I made in original post

So why are you complaining? You don't have to pay anything.

Yes, but I like to buy used games and I like EA games and I don't want to pay for content that's already on the disc. I'm rallying for my gamer brothers.

They obviously don't want your business since its not what they would consider business. They're not making anything from you so they don't exactly care about your opinion/feelings.

Or those of your gamer brothers who also aren't paying customers.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Think of it as buying a used gameboy, you saved a few bucks but you're missing the battery cover for it.

Heh, best metaphor ever.

Ehh, I thought it made sense ya know? You pay less but you don't get the whole package that nintendo sold, because you bought it from a friend.

I thought it was an apt metaphor, because it's funny and true.

I was reading the thread trying to put my own metaphor in, I was going to say "It's like using a friends WoW account, but bitching about paying subscription fees," but it didn't make much sense.

I agree with you, if you're going to buy something without contributing to the developer, you can't be surprised or outraged when you don't have access to all the features, that's just how things work. Even if the original buyer paid for those features, that's the original buyers purchase, you are the current buyer, and you have not contributed to said company.

Sense good yeah make do huh?

Not really. As I said earlier, if you get a used gameboy in good condition (not hard, as they were built like tanks and there actually are people out there who know how to take care of their stuff) it's going to have everything with the possible exception of the original packaging -- and that was meant to be thrown out. A better metaphor is that you bought a used gameboy, but nintendo has a deal with the seller to rip out the speaker, the headphone jack, and the battery cover, and then only give it back to you if you pay a "small" fee to Nintendo for each of these parts. It's not like you actually need any of those parts to play the games...

Actually that's a really shit metaphor, which is why I didn't quote it.

How so? If you buy the game new, it comes with the DLC -- usually, it's even on the disc, and the only thing you're downloading is an authorization code to use it. When you buy used, the publisher has effectively ripped that content out of the game, and prevented you from using it until you pay them the fee. It's extortion.

Buying the game new, is contributing money to the publisher. You get the extra content.

Buying the game used, is contributing nothing to the publisher. So they charge for the extra content.

Really, why is this so difficult to understand? It sounds like you just want the best of both worlds. Something that's much much cheaper than retail price, with all the content retail price gives.

I'm going to try my hand at an example again (another blizzard onelolol) it will probably be terrible, but it's the same sort of thing.

If a friend buys Warcraft III and uses the code for battlenet, then sells you the original disks, are you entitled to battlenet?

No. You have to buy a battlenet code from blizzard, because the other one is already in use by someone else.

That's actually a pretty terrible example, but it's all I can really think of.

I'm not saying it's the fair, I'm saying it's why it happens.

Besides, 2nd hand games are stupidly cheap anyway, (like $40-50) for new releases. Even if you have to pay another $10 you're still walking away with about $30 profit instead of buying a new game.

It's not that I don't understand that the developer gets no money on a second hand sale; it's that it's irrelevant, because they've already been paid for that copy. When I receive my used copy from the original buyer, he transfers ownership of it to me -- something that even the EULA usually states is okay. In the Blizzard example you gave, yes, I should get Battle.net access. It's not like the other user is going to be using it without his copy of the game. Besides, to correct the metaphor, it would be like buying the Warcraft III Battlechest, and then being locked out of the expansions, which I have discs for, because someone else has already used them. Why do you not see how terrible that is?

Also, if you admit that it's not fair, what are we even arguing about? I haven't once denied that this is happening, in fact I've expressed fears that it would spread, much like $60 PC games did in the wake of Modern Warfare.

[sub]Also, $40-$50 cheap? I never pay more than $20 for a game, and it's not in impulse buy territory until it hits $10 for a new physical copy, $5 for a used physical copy, or $2.50 for a steam game. A $10 DLC is a significant portion of my average cost for a game -- in fact, it's more on its own than I usually spend on a single game.[/sub]

I didn't admit it's not fair. I said "I'm not saying it's fair. I'm not saying it's unfair either. I see it as a neutral area.

I think the companies well within its rights to restrict access to content that you haven't paid the company for. It makes perfect sense to me why they do it.

I see you fixed up my metaphor, but you didn't fix it up properly. By buying the battlechest second hand, you're buying all the warcraft games inside the battlechest, which includes the expansion "The Frozen Throne" it's not considered an extra in the battlechest. The extra is battlenet, it's an extra that requires constant server maintenance etc.

Also, no you are not entitled to battlenet if you didn't pay for it. The original owner has the rights to battlenet, because he can always buy second hand CD's and play it again with his battlenet account, as he's already paid for it the first time around.

I'm not going to say that you're poor because I feel that would be like taking a cheap shot (sorry, I had to work that in somehow), but it seems like you're extremely greedy and selfish.

Paying the absolute bare minimum, not caring if any money goes to the main distributor. I'll admit, when I buy a second hand game I don't really care about the developer, but if I was forced to pay $10 for multiplayer I would understand why, and, if I deemed it worthwhile probably pay the $10.

Yes, because trying to get a fair price on something, rather than paying an extortionate amount of money, clearly makes me the greedy one. It's not the asshat who charges $60 for a game, and then tries to make the person who buys that already paid for game second hand pay them for it all over again. As for the whole Battle.net deal, first of all, assuming the person who I bought the game doesn't pirate the game, they either paid for another new copy, or another used copy. Either way, Blizzard isn't out any additional money in terms of the total number of users on Battle.net. Second, with the whole metaphor, I really don't think that battle.net access can be considered a bonus when it comes to a Blizzard RTS. It's just as much a part of what you pay for as anything else in the box. I used the expansion for the metaphor because that is the actual additional content -- Battle.net access comes with the vanilla game.

 

[IamGamer41]

Who gives a crap about multiplayer anyway.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

About Steam: I'm not happy about the fact that there's no resale, but when you consider most of the games I've bought were $2.50 a piece or less with the rest of them being well under $10, you start to see why I'm willing to accept the drawbacks. As for supporting the industry, well, I support the industry when I find a game I want new for $20 or less. If they aren't willing to meet me half way, I'll find used sellers who will. No dev is going to starve just because I'm a smart consumer who is actually careful with my money.

You can be a "smart consumer" all you like and more power to you, I got about 150 games on Steam already and most of those I got from "Sales", you can also use certain Retailers (I don't know how it looks in the US) that are cheaper, I'm importing a lot of games from the UK to mainland Europe because they are cheaper... in both of those cases my money goes to the people responsible for the game though, about 70-80% of it when I buy on Steam and 30-40% of it Retail. By getting used you aren't being a consumer or rather customer at all because you aren't paying them anything... not much unlike pirates. They don't care about you, they don't want your business and they don't care to support you...

Staying with "stupid analogies", you don't buy a book in a garage sale or flea market and go complain to the Publisher that there's pages missing and coffee stains all over it? You don't buy a used car and after it refuses working just a few weeks later go complaining to the manufacturer that it broke down and you want it fixed? They're happy to sell you new parts or a new book in any case but they want their money's worth for it... You're making a conscious choice to buy used because you're being cheap and in most cases even know what the consequences are (or you at least should), and they're not even preventing you from doing it yet, see the content you have to buy as the "coffee-stains" and "missing pages" of video games...

Did the publisher personally rip out the pages? Because it's perfectly possible to buy a spotless used book; if you don't check it for ripped pages and coffee stains, that's your fault. These games are "stained" and "ripped" by the publisher the instant they change hands.

Snipped for Length

So to flip it back around at you.

Do you think that you enjoying the game, without paying the developers for creating the game is fair?

Just because somebody else already paid for that copy, they paid for the experience of the game. You paid a tiny fraction of what that person paid for the copy, none of it went to the creators at all, yet you expect to (and in many cases do) enjoy the same experience.

Company A sells game for $100 to Customer. Money goes to Company A (Ubisoft) and Distributor A (EBgames). Game features online multi-player and lots of free DLC to the person who uses the CD-Key first.

Customer A finishes game, enjoys the experience (or doesn't, yet has the experience anyway) and returns game to EB a month later (receiving some sort of trade-in fee).

Customer B buys same second hand game 2 months later. Pays $40 (or in your case $20). Expects to enjoy the exact benefits and experience for far less money than customer A did, without a cent of it going to Company A, and all the money going to Distributor A.

For someone talking about how unethical and greedy the company is for charging (again) a small fraction of what people actually paid on retail, you sure seem intent on receiving something for nothing.

It's not "something for nothing" it's "Something second hand, for a reasonably reduced rate." I'm sorry, but when I buy a game, I only pay for a license if I'm buying it off Steam. If I buy a physical product, that's what I'm paying for. I don't pay for an experience; I pay for a product. A roller coaster ride or a movie in a theater is an experience. Park souvenirs and DVDs are physical products. The EULA is a load of crap, and there will come a day when they get thrown out of court on a regular basis. Back to the second hand thing, if I were to buy a guitar second hand, would it be reasonable for Fender to send someone in to chop off the headstock, and not give it back until I paid them for it? So why is it reasonable for these companies to chop things out of the game when it gets sold on, and then only give it back to the current legal owner of that game once they pay the protection money?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Did the publisher personally rip out the pages? Because it's perfectly possible to buy a spotless used book; if you don't check it for ripped pages and coffee stains, that's your fault. These games are "stained" and "ripped" by the publisher the instant they change hands.

They don't do anything of the kind, there's a key in every new game package (on the manual), that Key is one time use only and it's clearly stated several times/you should know that by now. Whoever uses the Key(s) first gets the content.

Also nice how you deliberately choose to reply only to certain points of each post xD

Usually the Project $10 stuff is on the disc, the DLC code gets you a small file that in turn grants you access to the stuff that is already included on the disc. If it's on the disc that I paid for, it's mine. As for your other point, where did I fail to address any of the points? The only stuff I didn't specifically address was a lengthy reiteration of something else that I did address.

P.S.: On second reading, I see that I did ignore your comments about importing. Basically, the US already has equivalent prices on brand new games to the UK, but they don't drop anymore, at least not quickly. I'm pretty sure MW2 is still $60 in the local walmart, although to be fair, most games that old would be $40 by now. Unfortunately, while UK retailers seem to compete with one another on price, US retailers tend to stick to the MSRP, aside from an occasional holiday sale -- which still usually doesn't get the price lower than a used game, let alone a Steam sale; those actually tend to be cheaper than buying used.

The only time the price permanently drops on a new game in the U.S. is when the publisher puts out a new edition with a lower MSRP. This was once fairly common, with most major hits eventually getting a jewel case only release for $10. Unfortunately, the only major game that I've seen get that treatment in recent years was the original Assassin's Creed, which I snatched up immediately, despite not especially caring for the game in the little bit of hands on time I had already had with it. $10 for a new game was too rare an occurance for me to pass up, and I did wind up getting some enjoyment out of the game, despite the fact that it didn't run all that well on my barely gaming worthy laptop.

To conclude, I'm not averse to paying the publisher and the dev, but I'm not going to give them more than $20 for a new game. If I happen to come across it used for $5, why on earth would I continue to wait, hoping that they would eventually drop the new price to $10 (my impulse buy point for a new game; $20 is where I draw the line for something I decided ahead of time that I wanted, and couldn't bring myself to wait for a better buy.), or wait for a Steam sale that may or may not save me any money?

 

[squid5580]

First off, no I would not.

Secondly, wow. It's been so long since I've bought a new game I'm completely out of the loop when it comes to how they are trying to nickle and dime us out of money.

Wow, someone else on this forum who doesn't blindly cheer on the game companies as they try to separate us from our money. You are a minority on this site my friend. Be proud.


OT: Yep, that's what EA does. Game companies are unique in the way they rip off their customers, and then use their PR arm to somehow make them think they're getting a good deal. I mean, there's plenty of scams that work on that principle, but the difference is with most scams, the victims don't suffer from Stockholm syndrome.

I really hate to be the one to say this but if you need to spend that 10 bucks, the moment you pay you become their customer. You are Gamestop's or the pawn shops or ebays customer before then. How do you be a customer of some company you aren't buying something from? Just because you own a EA product does not make you their customer. Just like owning a GMC car you bought used does not make you a GMC customer.

It hurts the person who bought the original game by lowering the resale value. Further, just because you buy one game used does not mean you buy everything used -- my fairly respectable Steam collection is evidence in that direction. Finally, all the little bits of nickel and diming they do -- if you can call, say, charging a quarter of the cost of the game for four new multiplayer maps "nickel and diming" -- ultimately hurts the consumer. Basically, whether or not I am a customer of a given publisher on one specific purchase, I either have or will most likely pay for a new game from them at some point. When they screw me over, no matter what the context, it doesn't make me look favorably upon them. This is without getting into DRM at all.

Edit: to be clear, that "screwing over their customers" line was in reference to their overall business plan, not exclusively to this particular practice. We take it up the wrong end from these guys on a daily basis, and there is a disturbing percentage of gamers who bend over and say "thank you sir, can I have another?"

The only people getting screwed over by project $10 are the people who are screwing them over. Simple math really. Just because you bought another game of theirs new makes no difference. They had to pay to make each one. When you buy it new you are paying for that game. If you want to invest in future games by stock in the company.

This not to be mistaken for 100 dollar smurfberry wagons or $25 pets in a subscription based mmo. This is just about project $10. Which is a brilliant strategy to turn non customers into customers. And why should they care if it lowers the value of something they are trying to stop you from doing in the first place?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

First off, no I would not.

Secondly, wow. It's been so long since I've bought a new game I'm completely out of the loop when it comes to how they are trying to nickle and dime us out of money.

Wow, someone else on this forum who doesn't blindly cheer on the game companies as they try to separate us from our money. You are a minority on this site my friend. Be proud.


OT: Yep, that's what EA does. Game companies are unique in the way they rip off their customers, and then use their PR arm to somehow make them think they're getting a good deal. I mean, there's plenty of scams that work on that principle, but the difference is with most scams, the victims don't suffer from Stockholm syndrome.

I really hate to be the one to say this but if you need to spend that 10 bucks, the moment you pay you become their customer. You are Gamestop's or the pawn shops or ebays customer before then. How do you be a customer of some company you aren't buying something from? Just because you own a EA product does not make you their customer. Just like owning a GMC car you bought used does not make you a GMC customer.

It hurts the person who bought the original game by lowering the resale value. Further, just because you buy one game used does not mean you buy everything used -- my fairly respectable Steam collection is evidence in that direction. Finally, all the little bits of nickel and diming they do -- if you can call, say, charging a quarter of the cost of the game for four new multiplayer maps "nickel and diming" -- ultimately hurts the consumer. Basically, whether or not I am a customer of a given publisher on one specific purchase, I either have or will most likely pay for a new game from them at some point. When they screw me over, no matter what the context, it doesn't make me look favorably upon them. This is without getting into DRM at all.

Edit: to be clear, that "screwing over their customers" line was in reference to their overall business plan, not exclusively to this particular practice. We take it up the wrong end from these guys on a daily basis, and there is a disturbing percentage of gamers who bend over and say "thank you sir, can I have another?"

The only people getting screwed over by project $10 are the people who are screwing them over. Simple math really. Just because you bought another game of theirs new makes no difference. They had to pay to make each one. When you buy it new you are paying for that game. If you want to invest in future games by stock in the company.

This not to be mistaken for 100 dollar smurfberry wagons or $25 pets in a subscription based mmo. This is just about project $10. Which is a brilliant strategy to turn non customers into customers. And why should they care if it lowers the value of something they are trying to stop you from doing in the first place?

Look, under US law, once they sell me that game, it's mine to do with it as I wish. If I want to sell it on, legally, I have that right. Technically, these companies are infringing upon my rights as a consumer, while my actions do nothing of the sort to their rights. It's not screwing them over to buy used; you're thinking of piracy.

Edit: Also, if the original customer buys the game expecting to be able to sell it on later, lowering the resale value lowers what he/she is willing to pay, effectively devalues the product the publisher was trying to increase the profits of. This Project $10 stuff is really not good for anyone.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Snip

This is just repeatedly going around in circles.

I'm sorry, but the guitar metaphor is crap and not at all what happens. If you buy a guitar second hand you're entitled to the guitar, you're not however entitled to the Online Tutorial Access Code that came with the guitar with the first sale. You'll have to buy another access code.

Just like most second hand games don't restrict half of the original story until you pay $20.

What they do restrict, is things like DLC and Multiplayer. Extra Content intended for paying customers. You are not paying the developers, you are not a paying customer of Ubisoft.

You paid for the second hand copy, you paid for the game and the physical copy. You did not pay for the extra content supplied by the developer.

That's how I see this.

If second hand copies suddenly start restricting the content that should be a given (such as being able to save the game). Then maybe I'll take an issue, maybe. I see it as a form of legal piracy though, I'm not all up in arms about piracy being wrong or anything, I'm more of a "see's the merit to both sides" person.

I just find it hypocritical accusing corporations of being greedy when it's coming from someone who doesn't contribute to said corporation anyway.

Again, the stuff from Project $10 is all on the disc, and in this day and age, multiplayer is in no way, shape, or form an "added bonus." For most games that include it, it's actually the main draw. Removing the headstock from the guitar is equivalent to removing multiplayer functionality from a game, at least if that's the main selling point of said game. If I pay for a disc, the contents are mine. EULAs have no meaning to me.

 

[ZtH]

Having read through all the posts made here I have to say I'm against the $10 charge.

Two points that I feel haven't been explored adequately are the deterioration of physical copies of games and some of the ramifications of this project on the used gaming market.

As for the deterioration of the games, it has been stated numerous times in this topic that you're paying significantly less for a copy that is precisely the same as the original, which I feel is not the case. As cd's are used they will inevitably develop scratches and other wear on this disk itself. This deteriorating condition means that any used copy of a game cannot be infinitely passed between successive purchasers while preserving the original content. This clearly separates used games from piracy as piracy results in an infinite number of copies of precisely the same experience.

As for the effect of this on the used games industry, it seems to me that this project places undue importance on the resale of games in order to maintain servers and the like. For instance if we take an example of someone buying a new copy of the game on release and playing it for a year, this player is assumed to have payed for his year of use on the online servers with his initial purchase. Now suppose in a different instance someone purchases the game new, plays it for six months, and then sells it to his friend who plays for an additional six months. In both cases a year's worth of server usage is incurred and the same amount is payed to the developer.
Now if we add project ten dollar into the equation the same amount of server time between the instances adds up to two different amounts payed to the developer, with more money being payed by the pair of players who exchanged the copy between them. The exact same costs were incurred by the developer to run the server and yet with the used sale they earned more. This can be extended to any period of time and if you add in more exchanges between players the developer increases their profit even more off of each disc.
So with the assumption that the developer by selling you the disc new agrees to front the costs of running the online server for the lifetime of your game we see that there is no loss for used sales. In fact with this project ten dollar they are making more money by repeatedly charging for the same services.
The only argument relating to server maintenance that remains relies on the assumption that the developers are not agreeing to maintain those servers for the lifetime of the game and are in fact relying on customers not utilizing their product for the full length offered. Even in this instance it would be more fair to use recurring charges for any online use for all players including those who bought new. This would be even worse for consumers as every game would become pay-to-play.

EDIT: Sorry, re-reading I wasn't clear on how it actually encouraged used sales. By selling games at a price at which they cannot continue to provide service for the lifetime of the game they are relying on used game sales and project ten dollar revenue to pay for people who continue playing for long periods of time with their original purchase. Relying on those charges to continue to pay for those customers means the original sale price wasn't high enough to reflect the services expected. This unsustainable business plan results in poor service to all who bought the game new or used because with any slowdown in used sales the company will lack the funds to maintain the servers.

 

[BrionJames]

I say to hell with EA. Like they're actually losing money, fuck 'em I say, if they want extra money for shit that should already be there, then I think they just lost the money I might have spent on the ludicrous DLC prices that everyone charges everyday for every damn game. I guess I'm not surprised, if the production companies can hold everyone hostage because they've bought up the rights to every fucking game imaginable, then I guess they will try to suck as much money as they can out of your pocket, it's a backwards ass way of doing it, but hey since they can't charge us eighty dollars for a brand new game, might as well try and get as much as they can out of you.

 

[dbmountain]

The fact of the matter is, it's THEIR product and they can do whatever they want with it. Furthermore, people will still buy it no matter what. Sounds like a good business decision to me

 

[dagens24]

OP has somewhat of a point. I think it's wrong of them to promote content that you need to pass for as though it were default content. If EA is going all kinds of ads and promoting for the game being all 'Oh yeah, it has online multiplayer' and doesn't mention it's considered DLC since you need the unlock code then I think that is wrong. If I buy a game 2nd hand and it says it includes multiplayer on the box without mentioning that I either need the original online code or to pay an additional $10 to play online then that is fraud. That being said, if they are up front and honest about it; when they are previewing the game they are making it clear what content is considered DLC and what isn't, and they make it clear on the box what is included by default versus what you need to use the code (or pay for) to download then all the power to them. They have a right to provide whatever content they want for whatever price they want, as long as they are transparent about it and aren't fooling people into buying a product by making promises about what content it includes and then later charging you extra to get that content.