Et tu EA?

[oplinger]

There's a simple fix here. Game Companies, make a game WORTH holding on to. Don't charge us because your shitty game isn't worth more than one playthrough. Keep it updated. Keep it supported. Fix bugs. Don't market a game like a movie and ***** when people treat it like a movie.

So you host your own servers and you charge for online passes because multiplayer has upkeep, ok. But when a game is traded in, isn't the original owner essentially selling his online pass? Why does it need to be re-bought? There aren't any extra people using the servers, for every game sold, 1 person uses the server. You aren't getting a raw deal here.

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.

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.

And as far as upkeep costs go its the responsibilities of the publisher to pay for upkeep. Sixty bucks a copy is more than enough to keep a server of proportionate size running, and that's assuming every single person who buys the game uses the multiplayer, which is not always true.

You're using the idea completely ass backwards. Bandwidth is not like a hot dog, it's more like a flat rate water bill at an apartment. The average usage of water gets calculated, the costs of that water is put together, and divided among the residents. It's a projected cost for the people who buy it new to keep the servers up and running. Your 60 bucks is not going -entirely- to server upkeep, it's mostly going to fill the hole they dug getting the game out there. So instead of making the game cost more based on their projections, they budget it out for a certain amount of time. If someone enjoys the online for 2 years, and then sells it, what's to stop the next guy from wanting his 2 years? Well let's see, it's no longer cost effective to keep the servers up after 30 months, and we go out of budget. So they have to charge more to give people who bought it used to give them full enjoyment.

...Of course, no it's not going to work like that, maybe in a perfect world. but that's where the charge would come from if it wasn't just them filling the giant hole in their pocket. Which any reasonable business should do, especially if it's something they see no returns on anyway.

 

[Timmibal]

I say videogames are a comparable product to books, music, and movies because all four products are physical products, that contain intellectual property, which is sold with a set of limited rights, none of which happen to be copyright. Your argument is like saying that a new flavor of coke isn't a drink because selling it carries a higher risk than just selling a jug of milk.

Dude, are you just playing devil's advocate? Or did you really not read his post?

Ok, let's go through this systematically.

First, lets take PC games out of the equation. With the amount of DRM and serial registration they have to go through, most recent releases on PC can be said to have a resale value just north of $dick, if they can be resold at all!

Secondly, risk to cost is probably the most irrelevant part that you took out of the argument. I agree that for the most part, games cost WAY too fucking much. Especially here in Australia. It is indeed within the customers rights to seek the best available deal. Cost to the customer as a monetary value is kind of supernumary to the argument in this case, since what the issue is dealing with is WHERE the money is going, rather than HOW.

To drastically simplify matters. Producers really only have two viewpoints on who gets money for their product. Them, and everybody else.

Now let's go through all three of the media examples you state are the same as games. Like a huge freaking number of the rest of you, I busted my hump in the retail sector for years before finding a 'real' job. And like many of you, I picked up a few things while I was there. So let's break it down.

Books: As I posted before, books are sold wholesale by the publisher to the retailer. Which means as far as the owner of the IP is concerned, there is no such thing as a 'lost' sale. The closest equivilant is in instances of vast undersale, the retailer can return the titles for a credit against future purchases. This is rare, however, and usually only applies to issues where a smaller retailer has vastly overestimated demand. This in and of itself is enough to render the resale value of a book completely moot in the eyes of the IP holder. Books are also a limited count resource. Only so many copies are produced, and a reprint is only done when demand is sufficient.

Music: Closer. Physical CDs do hold some limited resale value, insofar as they can be directly returned to live stock, assuming that there is no damage to the item. Unfortunately there's a big fucking crack in the bridge comparing them to games in this aspect. Retailers, unless something has VASTLY changed in the last month since I last bought a CD, do not encourage the resale of a CD. Returns where the item is not faulty is a relatively rare occurance, and it is SOP for a retailer NEVER to accept a return or exchange without valid proof of purchase.

Movies. Again, close, but no cigar. Again the resale value of the item is mitigated by the retailers refusal to accept a return without proof of purchase. The Retailer may accept the return, but does not encourage the customer to return the item.

Comparatively to say that retailers encourage returns on console games is to drastically understate the issue. "TRADE IN 5 GAMES TO GET 'FINAL GEARS OF MASS OPS OF THE DEAD' FOR ONLY $10!" brightly coloured banners cry. "DON'T PAY WITH MONEY, PAY WITH YOUR OLD GAMES!" vibrant signs on the shelves entreat. And oh, boy do they make it easy for you to do so. I could break into your house, steal your entire game library and trade it in with often barely a photo ID required.

Console games are different to other forms of media, for all of the reasons outlined in previous posts, but for the sake of this argument, primarily because retailers treat them differently. Resale is in direct competition with new sales, and as stated before, a resold game does in fact constitute a direct 1:1 lost sale to the publisher. No ambiguity, no extrapolation by loaded statistics as so often ridiculed in arguments against file sharing.

Resale hurts the game industry for exactly the same reasons ascribed to piracy. I can understand producers trying to circumvent resale, and I do believe that in this instance, EA is most definately in the right. From a developer and producer's perspective, a resold game is just as damaging as a bootleg copy, perhaps moreso, because the resale is being legally and actively marketed as a cheaper alternative to the legitimate copy.

 

[Spencer Petersen]

There's a simple fix here. Game Companies, make a game WORTH holding on to. Don't charge us because your shitty game isn't worth more than one playthrough. Keep it updated. Keep it supported. Fix bugs. Don't market a game like a movie and ***** when people treat it like a movie.

So you host your own servers and you charge for online passes because multiplayer has upkeep, ok. But when a game is traded in, isn't the original owner essentially selling his online pass? Why does it need to be re-bought? There aren't any extra people using the servers, for every game sold, 1 person uses the server. You aren't getting a raw deal here.

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.

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.

And as far as upkeep costs go its the responsibilities of the publisher to pay for upkeep. Sixty bucks a copy is more than enough to keep a server of proportionate size running, and that's assuming every single person who buys the game uses the multiplayer, which is not always true.

You're using the idea completely ass backwards. Bandwidth is not like a hot dog, it's more like a flat rate water bill at an apartment. The average usage of water gets calculated, the costs of that water is put together, and divided among the residents. It's a projected cost for the people who buy it new to keep the servers up and running. Your 60 bucks is not going -entirely- to server upkeep, it's mostly going to fill the hole they dug getting the game out there. So instead of making the game cost more based on their projections, they budget it out for a certain amount of time. If someone enjoys the online for 2 years, and then sells it, what's to stop the next guy from wanting his 2 years? Well let's see, it's no longer cost effective to keep the servers up after 30 months, and we go out of budget. So they have to charge more to give people who bought it used to give them full enjoyment.

...Of course, no it's not going to work like that, maybe in a perfect world. but that's where the charge would come from if it wasn't just them filling the giant hole in their pocket. Which any reasonable business should do, especially if it's something they see no returns on anyway.

If they really don't want to front the costs of servers they can open the field to player run servers. Or if people are real cheap, an option for shitty hosted servers. But if they want to make the big move and front the costs themselves they should be prepared to, ya know, front the cost themselves. They can't complain that they are losing money from upkeep if they made a conscientious decision to provide the upkeep.

How about a compromise, on release they will host the servers and issue a statement. They will agree to front the costs for servers for a set period of time and in the meantime they will allows player-hosted servers to take root. After around 1-2 years they will give a warning that the company servers will be shutting down but at that point people will be able to support the game themselves. The real fans will probably be willing to help out. The casual players will probably have moved on. And everyone wins. People keep playing the game, the company no longer has upkeep costs. All we need from the company is some time to set up and modding capabilities. Not really much to ask for really.

 

[oplinger]

There's a simple fix here. Game Companies, make a game WORTH holding on to. Don't charge us because your shitty game isn't worth more than one playthrough. Keep it updated. Keep it supported. Fix bugs. Don't market a game like a movie and ***** when people treat it like a movie.

So you host your own servers and you charge for online passes because multiplayer has upkeep, ok. But when a game is traded in, isn't the original owner essentially selling his online pass? Why does it need to be re-bought? There aren't any extra people using the servers, for every game sold, 1 person uses the server. You aren't getting a raw deal here.

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.

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.

And as far as upkeep costs go its the responsibilities of the publisher to pay for upkeep. Sixty bucks a copy is more than enough to keep a server of proportionate size running, and that's assuming every single person who buys the game uses the multiplayer, which is not always true.

You're using the idea completely ass backwards. Bandwidth is not like a hot dog, it's more like a flat rate water bill at an apartment. The average usage of water gets calculated, the costs of that water is put together, and divided among the residents. It's a projected cost for the people who buy it new to keep the servers up and running. Your 60 bucks is not going -entirely- to server upkeep, it's mostly going to fill the hole they dug getting the game out there. So instead of making the game cost more based on their projections, they budget it out for a certain amount of time. If someone enjoys the online for 2 years, and then sells it, what's to stop the next guy from wanting his 2 years? Well let's see, it's no longer cost effective to keep the servers up after 30 months, and we go out of budget. So they have to charge more to give people who bought it used to give them full enjoyment.

...Of course, no it's not going to work like that, maybe in a perfect world. but that's where the charge would come from if it wasn't just them filling the giant hole in their pocket. Which any reasonable business should do, especially if it's something they see no returns on anyway.

If they really don't want to front the costs of servers they can open the field to player run servers. Or if people are real cheap, an option for shitty hosted servers. But if they want to make the big move and front the costs themselves they should be prepared to, ya know, front the cost themselves. They can't complain that they are losing money from upkeep if they made a conscientious decision to provide the upkeep.

How about a compromise, on release they will host the servers and issue a statement. They will agree to front the costs for servers for a set period of time and in the meantime they will allows player-hosted servers to take root. After around 1-2 years they will give a warning that the company servers will be shutting down but at that point people will be able to support the game themselves. The real fans will probably be willing to help out. The casual players will probably have moved on. And everyone wins. People keep playing the game, the company no longer has upkeep costs. All we need from the company is some time to set up and modding capabilities. Not really much to ask for really.

They want to front the costs, but only for a certain period. Online play at their expense is not your god given right.

The reason for not having player run servers, like say, locally hosted servers on your Xbox, is because of the extreme variability of connections. Cleatus out on alabama may still use dial-up on a shaky wireless network because his house is loaded up with lead based paint. And you'd have a terrible time playing when he decides to host. Jin out in Korea may have a sweet connection, and it's wired in so the wind can't shut down his server, but on the other side of the planet, you're going to be in for a terribly laggy time no matter what.

Even without locally hosted servers, player run servers have a few issues to go with them, upped production costs in the initial game, the need to produce a dedicated server package, and hacking. They kind of hand over the server to you, and some publishers don't want you to screw around with all their hard work (we're not all valve..or epic...) So it's really just one giant issue to some people.

In your compromise, that's actually happened. It's not fun cost wise though, for the same reasons mentioned above. They'd rather have their online be awesome for 3 years to keep people playing and then go out on a good note rather than hand it over to the sub-par amateur bracket and sully their spotless reputation. (note this is a decision well before the game's released)

PC games notwithstanding anyway. ...We've had dedicated servers forever >.>

 

[veloper]

this would be okay as games like bulletstorm and dead space are played primarily for their campaign,

Battlefield 3 better be sold at a reduced price for the cds if i have to fork over another $10 buck for the multiplayer

When you buy second hand, you do it for the (slightly) reduced price. So that's a given.

As in, if i buy the game new and then had to fork out another 10 bucks it better be because they were selling the games cheap in the first place

Buy the game new, then you get the online for free, so you don't need to worry about it then.

 

[veloper]

Music: Closer. Physical CDs do hold some limited resale value, insofar as they can be directly returned to live stock, assuming that there is no damage to the item. Unfortunately there's a big fucking crack in the bridge comparing them to games in this aspect. Retailers, unless something has VASTLY changed in the last month since I last bought a CD, do not encourage the resale of a CD. Returns where the item is not faulty is a relatively rare occurance, and it is SOP for a retailer NEVER to accept a return or exchange without valid proof of purchase.

Movies. Again, close, but no cigar. Again the resale value of the item is mitigated by the retailers refusal to accept a return without proof of purchase. The Retailer may accept the return, but does not encourage the customer to return the item.

I agree fro the most part with your reply there, but you missed the biggest difference IMO.
Music CDs and movie DVDs simply cannot be protected against resale.
You have a simple box and you simply put a disc in and it doesn´t go online.

I reckon that if the big guys could put DRM on their discs and it somehow worked, they would.

Then ofcourse, why buy a used copy of a CD, when copying music is so trivial?
Who's going to buy the music CD? It's the fan who wouldn't want to screw over the artist anyway.
The main reason we have a big market for used games, but only a small market for used music, is because in gaming we still have dumbfucks who are cheap, but can't figure out how to pirate.

 

[Danish rage]

I bought a new epic editon of Bulletstorm for around 100 usd. That not EA´s fault but my country´s taxlaws.

You get a online pass for free if you buy new. I think that´s fair enough.

Im sure i got ninja´d from about 6 pages of comments.

 

[Continuity]

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.

Couldn't agree more, DLC, specifically the sort you describe is a real blight on games over the last couple of years and it seriously pisses me off to the point where I refuse to buy any DLC. And if there is a big title release (like FO3NV) I purposely hold off buying it until all the DLC is out and there is a bundled "ultimate edition". Fortunately I have patience to do this but there are a lot of gamers getting ripped off out there.

 

[JaymesFogarty]

My pass for DS2 was free, but yeah, why does this exist?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is completely different. If you purchase the game new, absolutely nothing about your gaming experience will change; the developers don't want to add any cost to your gaming experience. The reason they are taking online play away from gamers that buy second-hand, is that 3-10 people could respectively purchase that game. The interest is definitely there, but the potential for a sale is lost because they buy the game from a third party. Remember, the single player content of the used game will be untouched. Charging an extra $10, or £5 if like me you live in the UK, is just a way to make a little back on those lost sales. (I was going to put a comparison here, but as this seems to be the first example of charging customers buying used copies, I can't see anything similar.) In a way, everybody wins. You still get your full game cheaper than buying new, and the developer still gets some kind of contribution. Remember, it's not the continued use of the licence they're charging. It's the passing of the licence; the loss of a sale in their eyes. It seems pretty simple to me; buy games new from EA. It's only EA doing this, so if you don't support it, use consumerism to your advantage and refuse to purchase any further games from EA.

 

[Nieroshai]

My pass for DS2 was free, but yeah, why does this exist?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is completely different. If you purchase the game new, absolutely nothing about your gaming experience will change; the developers don't want to add any cost to your gaming experience. The reason they are taking online play away from gamers that buy second-hand, is that 3-10 people could respectively purchase that game. The interest is definitely there, but the potential for a sale is lost because they buy the game from a third party. Remember, the single player content of the used game will be untouched. Charging an extra $10, or £5 if like me you live in the UK, is just a way to make a little back on those lost sales. (I was going to put a comparison here, but as this seems to be the first example of charging customers buying used copies, I can't see anything similar.) In a way, everybody wins. You still get your full game cheaper than buying new, and the developer still gets some kind of contribution. Remember, it's not the continued use of the licence they're charging. It's the passing of the licence; the loss of a sale in their eyes. It seems pretty simple to me; buy games new from EA. It's only EA doing this, so if you don't support it, use consumerism to your advantage and refuse to purchase any further games from EA.

Why not charge a fee for used then? It's all or nothing, either it's still EA's after it leaves the shelf or not, the disc is proof of license ownership. You argue from the perspective of wants instead of the perspective of shoulds, you would WANT users who buy used to pay, but SHOULD they have to pay is the issue.
Also, on DS2 you can't even log into the single-player game unless you agree to set up an EA account. It's not just a bar on the multiplayer, it's a bar on every piece of content, post-purchase.

 

[JaymesFogarty]

My pass for DS2 was free, but yeah, why does this exist?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is completely different. If you purchase the game new, absolutely nothing about your gaming experience will change; the developers don't want to add any cost to your gaming experience. The reason they are taking online play away from gamers that buy second-hand, is that 3-10 people could respectively purchase that game. The interest is definitely there, but the potential for a sale is lost because they buy the game from a third party. Remember, the single player content of the used game will be untouched. Charging an extra $10, or £5 if like me you live in the UK, is just a way to make a little back on those lost sales. (I was going to put a comparison here, but as this seems to be the first example of charging customers buying used copies, I can't see anything similar.) In a way, everybody wins. You still get your full game cheaper than buying new, and the developer still gets some kind of contribution. Remember, it's not the continued use of the licence they're charging. It's the passing of the licence; the loss of a sale in their eyes. It seems pretty simple to me; buy games new from EA. It's only EA doing this, so if you don't support it, use consumerism to your advantage and refuse to purchase any further games from EA.

Why not charge a fee for used then? It's all or nothing, either it's still EA's after it leaves the shelf or not, the disc is proof of license ownership. You argue from the perspective of wants instead of the perspective of shoulds, you would WANT users who buy used to pay, but SHOULD they have to pay is the issue.
Also, on DS2 you can't even log into the single-player game unless you agree to set up an EA account. It's not just a bar on the multiplayer, it's a bar on every piece of content, post-purchase.

I don't know I don't know about that. I only own the PS3 version; if I had to sign up for anything, it was easy and completely free. If you're on the PC; I have no idea what your situation is with that. They don't charge a fee full stop for used copies because they don't want to obstruct the entire game experience. They are only taxing the gamer if they want to play online, which as discussed before deals with server costs, and gives something back to the developer. The entire campaign is untouched.

 

[Biafra Republic]

My pass for DS2 was free, but yeah, why does this exist?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is completely different. If you purchase the game new, absolutely nothing about your gaming experience will change; the developers don't want to add any cost to your gaming experience. The reason they are taking online play away from gamers that buy second-hand, is that 3-10 people could respectively purchase that game. The interest is definitely there, but the potential for a sale is lost because they buy the game from a third party. Remember, the single player content of the used game will be untouched. Charging an extra $10, or £5 if like me you live in the UK, is just a way to make a little back on those lost sales. (I was going to put a comparison here, but as this seems to be the first example of charging customers buying used copies, I can't see anything similar.) In a way, everybody wins. You still get your full game cheaper than buying new, and the developer still gets some kind of contribution. Remember, it's not the continued use of the licence they're charging. It's the passing of the licence; the loss of a sale in their eyes. It seems pretty simple to me; buy games new from EA. It's only EA doing this, so if you don't support it, use consumerism to your advantage and refuse to purchase any further games from EA.

Why not charge a fee for used then? It's all or nothing, either it's still EA's after it leaves the shelf or not, the disc is proof of license ownership. You argue from the perspective of wants instead of the perspective of shoulds, you would WANT users who buy used to pay, but SHOULD they have to pay is the issue.
Also, on DS2 you can't even log into the single-player game unless you agree to set up an EA account. It's not just a bar on the multiplayer, it's a bar on every piece of content, post-purchase.

I don't know I don't know about that. I only own the PS3 version; if I had to sign up for anything, it was easy and completely free. If you're on the PC; I have no idea what your situation is with that. They don't charge a fee full stop for used copies because they don't want to obstruct the entire game experience. They are only taxing the gamer if they want to play online, which as discussed before deals with server costs, and gives something back to the developer. The entire campaign is untouched.

Honestly, this is where EA should rightfully get slammed. Even if they were getting slammed revenue-wise (and with both EA's 2010 revenue [US$ 3.65 billion] and net income [US$719 million] up from 2009, it's decidedly not) charging an extra $10/£5/etc. for what is essentially the entire game you just paid money for at your local retailer is just rather venal.

 

[JaymesFogarty]

My pass for DS2 was free, but yeah, why does this exist?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is completely different. If you purchase the game new, absolutely nothing about your gaming experience will change; the developers don't want to add any cost to your gaming experience. The reason they are taking online play away from gamers that buy second-hand, is that 3-10 people could respectively purchase that game. The interest is definitely there, but the potential for a sale is lost because they buy the game from a third party. Remember, the single player content of the used game will be untouched. Charging an extra $10, or £5 if like me you live in the UK, is just a way to make a little back on those lost sales. (I was going to put a comparison here, but as this seems to be the first example of charging customers buying used copies, I can't see anything similar.) In a way, everybody wins. You still get your full game cheaper than buying new, and the developer still gets some kind of contribution. Remember, it's not the continued use of the licence they're charging. It's the passing of the licence; the loss of a sale in their eyes. It seems pretty simple to me; buy games new from EA. It's only EA doing this, so if you don't support it, use consumerism to your advantage and refuse to purchase any further games from EA.

Why not charge a fee for used then? It's all or nothing, either it's still EA's after it leaves the shelf or not, the disc is proof of license ownership. You argue from the perspective of wants instead of the perspective of shoulds, you would WANT users who buy used to pay, but SHOULD they have to pay is the issue.
Also, on DS2 you can't even log into the single-player game unless you agree to set up an EA account. It's not just a bar on the multiplayer, it's a bar on every piece of content, post-purchase.

I don't know I don't know about that. I only own the PS3 version; if I had to sign up for anything, it was easy and completely free. If you're on the PC; I have no idea what your situation is with that. They don't charge a fee full stop for used copies because they don't want to obstruct the entire game experience. They are only taxing the gamer if they want to play online, which as discussed before deals with server costs, and gives something back to the developer. The entire campaign is untouched.

Honestly, this is where EA should rightfully get slammed. Even if they were getting slammed revenue-wise (and with both EA's 2010 revenue [US$ 3.65 billion] and net income [US$719 million] up from 2009, it's decidedly not) charging an extra $10/£5/etc. for what is essentially the entire game you just paid money for at your local retailer is just rather venal.

Okay, remember that the whole game isn't the thing that's being locked away from used games; it's online mode. The entire single player campaign is completely available; it's only online that's not there. (And that only needs a £5 unlock code from the developer.)

 

[standokan]

The joke is, no matter what, you´re GONNA pay those 10 dollar, because you paid to get it in the first place and you can´t download it because that would be a waste of money. (not that anybody should download, for any reason, ever)

 

[Timmibal]

Honestly, this is where EA should rightfully get slammed. Even if they were getting slammed revenue-wise (and with both EA's 2010 revenue [US$ 3.65 billion] and net income [US$719 million] up from 2009, it's decidedly not) charging an extra $10/£5/etc. for what is essentially the entire game you just paid money for at your local retailer is just rather venal.

You're still missing the point. You've effectively purchased a bootleg copy. You are NOT contributing to the developer or producer by purchasing a resale, and you're adding to the cost of future releases. I have no problem with producers hamstringing resales for exactly that reason.

 

[Dr Pussymagnet]

The way I see it, if you bought it used it's probably already fifty dollars or less, depending on how long it's been since release. So it's not like you're paying more than you would with a new copy.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

This is one of those issues where I really don't see how gamers could be divided. Gamers get screwed again by a program which is justified as helping the industry. In reality that benefit will mostly only be realized by the suits on top and shareholders.

So a developer doesn't receive a cut of used sales. So it's a smart business decision. Neither of those are good reasons for me as a consumer to smile as I get blasted in the ass with ridiculous charges. Developers should act like every other comparable business who doesn't possess unprecedented power to shaft their own customers and just deal with it.

 

[Timmibal]

This is one of those issues where I really don't see how gamers could be divided. Gamers get screwed again by a program which is justified as helping the industry. In reality that benefit will mostly only be realized by the suits on top and shareholders.

How are you screwed? The code comes free with every new game. You can order region-free from the UK or hong kong for cheaper and still get the code. You can download the title through digital distribution and possibly pay less, and still get the code. You can even wait for the game to go down in price to a level you are happy to pay and still get the code. Hell, you can pick it up in a $5 discount bin, and as long as it is not a resale, you still get the code!

So a developer doesn't receive a cut of used sales. So it's a smart business decision. Neither of those are good reasons for me as a consumer to smile as I get blasted in the ass with ridiculous charges.

Actually the first is a VERY good reason. Did you not spot the part where resales are worse than piracy to a producer's bottom line? Purchasing resale ENCOURAGES companies to rape you harder for your money, as they have to recoup the losses that pre-owned games in direct competition with them are causing.

Developers should act like every other comparable business who doesn't possess unprecedented power to shaft their own customers and just deal with it.

Name me one other medium which has retailers actively encouraging its customers to return purchased product to be re-sold in direct competition with the producer.

Don't worry, I'll wait.

 

[Nieroshai]

My pass for DS2 was free, but yeah, why does this exist?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is completely different. If you purchase the game new, absolutely nothing about your gaming experience will change; the developers don't want to add any cost to your gaming experience. The reason they are taking online play away from gamers that buy second-hand, is that 3-10 people could respectively purchase that game. The interest is definitely there, but the potential for a sale is lost because they buy the game from a third party. Remember, the single player content of the used game will be untouched. Charging an extra $10, or £5 if like me you live in the UK, is just a way to make a little back on those lost sales. (I was going to put a comparison here, but as this seems to be the first example of charging customers buying used copies, I can't see anything similar.) In a way, everybody wins. You still get your full game cheaper than buying new, and the developer still gets some kind of contribution. Remember, it's not the continued use of the licence they're charging. It's the passing of the licence; the loss of a sale in their eyes. It seems pretty simple to me; buy games new from EA. It's only EA doing this, so if you don't support it, use consumerism to your advantage and refuse to purchase any further games from EA.

Why not charge a fee for used then? It's all or nothing, either it's still EA's after it leaves the shelf or not, the disc is proof of license ownership. You argue from the perspective of wants instead of the perspective of shoulds, you would WANT users who buy used to pay, but SHOULD they have to pay is the issue.
Also, on DS2 you can't even log into the single-player game unless you agree to set up an EA account. It's not just a bar on the multiplayer, it's a bar on every piece of content, post-purchase.

I don't know I don't know about that. I only own the PS3 version; if I had to sign up for anything, it was easy and completely free. If you're on the PC; I have no idea what your situation is with that. They don't charge a fee full stop for used copies because they don't want to obstruct the entire game experience. They are only taxing the gamer if they want to play online, which as discussed before deals with server costs, and gives something back to the developer. The entire campaign is untouched.

I literally could not play Dead Space 2 or Mass Effect 2 until I had signed up for an EA account, so my ability to even use them was bound to internet access and was not noted on the package. And DS2 I do have on ps3, it required the pass before I even started the campaign, annd ME2 doesn't even HAVE multiplayer.

 

[JaymesFogarty]

My pass for DS2 was free, but yeah, why does this exist?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is completely different. If you purchase the game new, absolutely nothing about your gaming experience will change; the developers don't want to add any cost to your gaming experience. The reason they are taking online play away from gamers that buy second-hand, is that 3-10 people could respectively purchase that game. The interest is definitely there, but the potential for a sale is lost because they buy the game from a third party. Remember, the single player content of the used game will be untouched. Charging an extra $10, or £5 if like me you live in the UK, is just a way to make a little back on those lost sales. (I was going to put a comparison here, but as this seems to be the first example of charging customers buying used copies, I can't see anything similar.) In a way, everybody wins. You still get your full game cheaper than buying new, and the developer still gets some kind of contribution. Remember, it's not the continued use of the licence they're charging. It's the passing of the licence; the loss of a sale in their eyes. It seems pretty simple to me; buy games new from EA. It's only EA doing this, so if you don't support it, use consumerism to your advantage and refuse to purchase any further games from EA.

Why not charge a fee for used then? It's all or nothing, either it's still EA's after it leaves the shelf or not, the disc is proof of license ownership. You argue from the perspective of wants instead of the perspective of shoulds, you would WANT users who buy used to pay, but SHOULD they have to pay is the issue.
Also, on DS2 you can't even log into the single-player game unless you agree to set up an EA account. It's not just a bar on the multiplayer, it's a bar on every piece of content, post-purchase.

I don't know I don't know about that. I only own the PS3 version; if I had to sign up for anything, it was easy and completely free. If you're on the PC; I have no idea what your situation is with that. They don't charge a fee full stop for used copies because they don't want to obstruct the entire game experience. They are only taxing the gamer if they want to play online, which as discussed before deals with server costs, and gives something back to the developer. The entire campaign is untouched.

I literally could not play Dead Space 2 or Mass Effect 2 until I had signed up for an EA account, so my ability to even use them was bound to internet access and was not noted on the package. And DS2 I do have on ps3, it required the pass before I even started the campaign, annd ME2 doesn't even HAVE multiplayer.

The fact that ME2 required it is not right at all. But with Dead Space 2, though again the EA account is something that should be optional. When I purchased Dead Space 2, I didn't want to set up online straight away, so I chose not to put in my online pass. Rest assured; it still let me play the entire campaign.