Et tu EA?
- Thread starter Blindswordmaster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Unlike making things such as cars or films, there are ongoing costs for games even after it's released. Someone has to pay for bandwidth and a dedicated server, and any patches that are released to add content or improve the game. If you make a car, the second it's shipped you stop paying costs for it. With a game, developers must continue to fund online support for it, even if it's passed on to someone else second-hand.Nieroshai said:
Here's what you aren't getting. If game companies are operating at a loss despite the high pricetag and millions of dollars in sales, they have an unsustainable business plan, and they need to change it by lowering their operating costs, dropping what they charge gamers, and generally encouraging people to buy more copies. Trying to squeeze blood out of a stone gets them nothing but pissed off customers. If a game company goes out of business because they couldn't make a profit selling new at less than $60, or more to the point, thought they could get away with not doing it, and exclusively sell at $60 and then follow up with an extra $10 to the people who buy their stuff used, then the market is better off without them. In a dog eat dog world, it's my job to keep myself from being eaten, and not my job to keep a game company from going down because ripping people off is no longer a sound business decision.oplinger said:
I actually don't mind this idea on the sole condition that the Devs and Pubs aren't getting money from second hand sales on multi-player games.
But only if that 'pass' also provides access not to just multiplayer, but to some free content only available to those who have it.
I think EA is sort of moving in the right direction, like through ME2's cerberus network, I just think that a lot of work needs to be done on the whole incentive system.
But only if that 'pass' also provides access not to just multiplayer, but to some free content only available to those who have it.
I think EA is sort of moving in the right direction, like through ME2's cerberus network, I just think that a lot of work needs to be done on the whole incentive system.
I'd just like to vent my spleen on this whole issue. As a gamer in a country that does not have gamestop or similar shops that resell games, I'm becoming more and more frustrated by various developers and their schemes to profit from used game sales. My friends and I are collateral damage of the war between EA and gamestop (or their equivalents), even though our only real option is buying games new, at the retail price from local stores or online. We have to deal with higher retail prices, (non)optional DLC, always-online DRM and similar idiotic solutions that actually make pirated games EASIER to play than the originals. (when I bought Assassins creed 2, I felt like a complete idiot, not a satisfied customer)
I don't buy many games, but when I do, I expect to get my money's worth. Games here are more expensive that in the US due to shipping costs, and yet the average monthly income is several times less. I've never bought a used game, and yet I'm often being treated as if I did by the developers.
As a final point, I'd like to rant about DLC. Specifically, the day-1 DLC that a few years ago would have been included in the first release of the game.
I wouldn't mind if the DLC of today was what expansion packs used to be. They should NOT, however, be an integral part of the existing game's story or character progression, or core functionality. Especially if it's obvious that the DLC is something that was meant to be part of the game all along, but was pulled out and sold as DLC in the final retail version so they could bleed a few bucks from everyone who wants to enjoy the game as it was intended in the first place.
I don't buy many games, but when I do, I expect to get my money's worth. Games here are more expensive that in the US due to shipping costs, and yet the average monthly income is several times less. I've never bought a used game, and yet I'm often being treated as if I did by the developers.
As a final point, I'd like to rant about DLC. Specifically, the day-1 DLC that a few years ago would have been included in the first release of the game.
I wouldn't mind if the DLC of today was what expansion packs used to be. They should NOT, however, be an integral part of the existing game's story or character progression, or core functionality. Especially if it's obvious that the DLC is something that was meant to be part of the game all along, but was pulled out and sold as DLC in the final retail version so they could bleed a few bucks from everyone who wants to enjoy the game as it was intended in the first place.
Must be nice to be rich.rockyoumonkeys said:
Edit: That wasn't entirely aimed at you. The whole mindset of "always buy new! Don't bother about saving yourself some money, the devs deserve it!" only works if you are yourself in a position of privilege. God willing and the creek don't rise, I'm going to be a teacher in a few years. This means that I will never be well enough off to afford to pay full price at launch for games. And you know what? People who can are a minority. So much of this argument (As well as the piracy argument, which I don't really want to get into here) comes down to people with more money than sense looking down on people who lack money, and it really grinds my gears.
You don't have to buy at launch. A six-month old new copy of an EA game will still have your online code.Owyn_Merrilin said:
You want to complain about people who advocate buying new, let's talk about the entitlement issues of people who buy used and feel like they deserve everything they'd get if they bought it new.
You mean like they would if they bought a book, a movie, a CD, a poster, or any other comparable item second hand? Yeah, I see no entitlement issue there. I do, however, see a weird form of consumer Stockholm syndrome in the people who go to bat for these companies that treat them like dirt.rockyoumonkeys said:
Edit: Also, to hear some of the other people in this thread talk, buying six months out is just as bad as buying used, because the game's success or failure has already been decided by that point. Personally, I couldn't give a rodent's behind. If my local gamestop hasn't sold it yet, I'm going to pick up a new copy of the Battlefield 1942 collection today -- which they had marked down to $10 at last check, because it was almost ten years old and still sitting on the shelf. Do I care that Gamestop and EA aren't making as much profit off of that game as they would had I paid full price? Heck no. Their profits aren't my responsibility any more than the health of my bank account is theirs.
Meh. The way I see it, you're already pretty blessed by being allowed to buy second-hand at all. Those days are coming to a fast close. As more things go digital, the ability to buy second-hand will go away. It's already happening. So yeah, it's an entitlement issue to a degree. You've been spoiled by things like books and cds, and you think that should apply to everything one can buy. I don't really agree.Owyn_Merrilin said:
And who's being treated like dirt? You obviously feel you are, but I don't. If I feel a game's too expensive, I can wait.
Back when I was a poor kiddie, I just pirated games like every kid. The guys who made the game possible don't get the money either way, but atleast that way you don't just give your hard earned money away to scammers like gamestop.Owyn_Merrilin said:
The disc is worth a cent, the data is in infinite supply.
new > piracy > resale shop
Having the disc on my shelf, however, has a value to me -- as does buying legally, for that matter. As much as I like the way Steam gets my library in one place and integrates it with various functions like friends lists and cross-game chat, a shelf lined with game boxes is going to beat a folder full of cover art any time. Piracy doesn't even get me the Steam integration, forgetting for a moment that it's illegal and somewhat dangerous.veloper said:
Oh would you quit these bullshit comparisons.Is that all you can do? Paraphrase the same argument over and over again? Despite your opinions about the medium of videogames, they are nothing like books, DVDs and CDs. When you purchase a game you are purchasing the right to use a piece of software as the developers and publishers intended it to be used.Owyn_Merrilin said:
And go ahead, claim the right of first sale. A number of court cases have disregarded the first sale doctrine in favour of software license agreements and for a damn good reason too. Vido games are sold as software and as such there are terms of use. Upon playing (like it or not and you can keep your warped opinion to yourself on this matter) you agree the the license agreement attached by the publisher.
And a number of court cases have upheld first sale, too. Vernor V. Autodesk has currently been ruled both ways, and we're waiting on the final appeal. Hopefully, we'll have a landmark case here that actually puts some power back into the consumer's hands. Although I'm not holding my breath, as conservative (and therefore pro-business) as the US court system is.Azure-Supernova said:
Edit: To put it in perspective, they can claim that first sale doesn't apply here all they want. It doesn't change the fact that they're wrong, and history will look back on this period in law poorly. Not to equate this to segregation, but it's similar to how for almost a century after the 14th amendment went on the books, we had court rulings that "interpreted" it to have no teeth. Looking back now, we see just how stupid and small minded those earlier judges were.
As for the claim that all of my comparisons are nothing like a video game, I have yet to see one good argument about that. Analog media is still media, you are still paying for a copy of the intellectual property stored in that format. You still don't receive copyright, but you do have the right to sell it on. When you add in digital media like CDs and DVDs, anyone who claims Videogames are not a comparable product is making about as much sense as someone who claims that water isn't wet.
That's an expensive box then, but whatever floats you boat then. Me, I wouldn't drop 55 on a used console game just to get the box too. Then I'd just get the new $60 game and indirectly support the developers aswell.Owyn_Merrilin said:
On the PC it's a non-issue anyway. You can only buy PC games new and simply waiting a bit makes it alot cheaper.
I doubt it. As digital distribution evolves and companies become more and more paranoid about the ever looming of piracy there will be more and more reason for companies to support software license agreements; it's already pretty strong over here in Europe. And I fail to see how that's a bad thing. I fail to see why all publishers can't have the right to regulate their own software; especially for security purposes.Owyn_Merrilin said:
But they aren't. They're a product still fairly new to the market and they're still evolving. Film and literature have had a lot longer to grow and the law has shaped around them; it's only fair that video games get the same treatment. You are comparing the notion of a well defined media (film) to a new and still largely undefined media.Owyn_Merrilin said:
I can't help but laugh at every single person against EA in this thread. Project $10 was been green lit and has been in action for some time. Surely by now some kind of legal reaction would have been made surely? Sure you guys can carry on and argue the toss, but it doesn't matter. I sincerely hope other Publishers adopt similar schemes; rewarding the people who wish to contribute to the medium rather than choke it through being selfish.
Have a good one.
