Um, since when? All of the rest of my ps3 games with online multiplayer have that multiplayer for FREE. FREE. NO CHARGE. NOT A PENNY. And a game that does not openly require a subscription like an MMO should NEVER charge extra for content that's ALREADY on the disc I paid the license to use.JaymesFogarty said:
That's exactly the point; if you pay the developer for the game, you receive full access to anything on the disc. The problem for EA is that anyone buying a used coy of the game is accessing bandwidth and online servers, essentially costing them money without having made them a contribution. If you buy games new, (and after a few months you can get good deals for them) you don't miss out on any EA games.Nieroshai said:
You realize every used game is not a new game, it used to be someone else's? That means someone has already-paid-for access? There's no extra bandwith from someone else playing my copy, it uses the bandwidth I used to use but don't use anymore. The contribution has already been made. You'd have to argue for a ban on used games for it to make sense, or else argue that every game is an account bound to the person's ID instead of the owner of the disc.JaymesFogarty said:
Absolutely; the first owner has made their contribution for online play. The problem is when people buy games second hand, they obviously have intent to buy the game. Therefore, if they buy a game second hand, no money goes to the developer, so in their eyes it's a lost sale. It's this money that they're trying to get back; not just the money online. Issuing a ban on used games seems harsh; but forcing a 40% developer tax on used games, meaning that retailers issue 40% of the revenue of one used game to the respective developer, seems more sensible. To be honest, I don't like the idea that they lock away features just because you get the game second-hand. I'm just trying to picture how they see the situation.Nieroshai said:
But it makes no sense for a developer to be paid for the same game twice. They already charged $60 for THAT license, yet they're going to charge more for the continued use of the same license? It might as well be me playing the game, in that it doesn't matter who uses something as long as it was paid for. If they charge for the used sale, why not require renewal of the initial contract every five years and force the original buyer to pay a fee to keep it operable? It's the same concept, and in no business can you ever expect someone who bought your merchandise to pay for it a second time, which essentially is what a used fee is.JaymesFogarty said:
The only thing you've shown is that videogames cost more to make than an album or a book, and that companies don't properly support their releases for very long after launch. You haven't proved that there's any difference between videogames and movies at all, and you really havn't proved where the difference between them is as a product. It's like saying a motorcycle isn't a comparable product to a car, which isn't comparable to a truck, because each one has a different set of costs involved, both for the company and the customer.Dexter111 said:
It's not really about the physicality of the medium. It's about costs. That's where they differ. Costs are what make everything work. That's what it's all based on. Video game devs do not have a source of income besides that small window of sales. They get -nothing- else.Owyn_Merrilin said:
Videogame devs are paid to make the game, that's where the budget goes, and is why 3D Realms were able to work on Duke Nukem Forever for so long without actually making a saleable product. Any profits they may see from the sales are bonuses, not the basis of their regular salary; almost all of the profits on the games go to the publisher, with the majority of what doesn't going to the retailer. Further, the risk on a AAA videogame, in terms of initial outlay, is significantly smaller than the risk in the same terms for a blockbuster movie. Movies have the box office returns to add to the DVD sales, but plenty of movies make enough on DVD sales that, if the DVD cost just as much to master as the movie cost to get made and in theaters, they'd still turn a profit. The "film has theaters and musicians have concerts" argument really doesn't fly when you actually look at the numbers.oplinger said:
Yeah I guess you're right. I suppose since movies make that much more money, it's just silly for us to think that games should make similar amounts. I mean when a movie is a hit in the box office, and then makes the same amount of cash in DVD sales, who am I to argue that a video game might only sell 20,000 units and then get resold to half a million people.Owyn_Merrilin said:
Upkeep of servers is bandwidth based, and they don't give it to you indefinitely. The costs don't go up, but they're being used for longer periods of time. Meaning they pay the same amount for an extended period, maybe out of their projected time line. You pay for that, not the other guys slot in the magical fairy bandwidth river of foreverness you think exists on the internet.Spencer Petersen said:
The point is, the costs involved in videogames are significantly lower. If they can't recoup them without having to introduce crap like Project $10, then their business model is unsustainable, and they need to find ways to cut costs, instead of gouging and driving away customers. They might start by charging less for their games, in order to get more sales. I have never in my life paid $60 for a game, but I've bought plenty of new games for $20 -- which is a comparable price to a freshly released DVD. The original excuse for the high costs was that cartridges cost a lot to make -- and they did. However, charging $40 or more per game hasn't been necessary since the PS1 came onto the scene. Costs have gone up, but not enough that the unit price is anywhere near what it was in the cartridge days -- let alone higher, which is what the $60 price tag would imply. Face it, they're ripping us off.oplinger said:
Say you buy a season ticket for your favorite sports team. The ticket also includes a hot dog and soda whenever you go to the game. Say you have to leave for a while and you sell it to a friend so that it doesn't go to waste. Does the ballpark have the right to make your friend pay for the food because the ticket changed hands? Of course not, because the food was payed for with the season ticket. Likewise, the online pass was payed for by the original owner, so the company has no right to charge more just because another person is now the benefactor.oplinger said:
Pretty much the internet in a nutshell. Hell, that's pretty much everyone in a nutshell when you get down to it.TerranReaper said:
Significantly lower...to movies? yes. But so are the sales. They have been recouping the losses so far, but as the economy goes down hill more and more people are buying used, decreasing sales. That makes it harder to recoup the losses, because used games being cheaper is expected, and it'll happen. So why buy new if you get the same game for much cheaper in a month or two?Owyn_Merrilin said:
