Et tu EA?

[Zhukov]

It's not extra content, it's on the fucking disc. Have you never bought a used game?

So if the $10 online content had to be downloaded you wouldn't mind?

Yes. If I bought a game and there was no multiplayer button and then I put in this code, downloaded the thing, and multiplayer was available, then that would be fine.

Oh. Okay.

I find that very odd. In both cases you are paying an extra $10 to use online functions with your second-hand copy. Why does it annoy you so much more when the content is already on the disc?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

EA has every right to charge you. If you want access to the full content, buy the game from the publisher, not a third party. The used game market takes away multiple sales from the publisher/developers, so it makes perfect sense for them to charge you to use extra content.

It's not extra content, it's on the fucking disc. Have you never bought a used game?

I should have worded that better. But my point stands. If you want full access to a game, pay the company. Your getting a game they made at a lower price, without paying them anything, and you expect to take up their multiplayer servers for free? Bandwidth costs money, so it is only fair that they get compensated for bills that you rack up.

Then put out DLC. New maps, I'll gladly pay for new maps!

I wouldn't unless there were enough maps to call it an expansion pack. This generation has been heavy on the customer gouging, to the point that it's pretty much driven me away from buying the mainstream titles. To all the people that quoted me: thank you for proving my point. Yes, the companies deserve to get paid. But they don't deserve to nickel and dime me for all I'm worth, nor do they deserve to charge whatever the heck they want, and expect me to pay it. I haven't paid full price for a game since Mazes of Fate on the GBA, and then it was because it was made by a small developer and I needed to grab a copy before it pretty much permanently disappeared into the hands of collectors.

Developers can cry all they want about how they're losing money, but a AAA game costs significantly less to make than a blockbuster movie, yet they charge us much more than Hollywood could ever dream of charging. PR agents are not the consumer's friend -- and neither is any company who wants their money.

AAA devs don't have movie theaters, WHABLAM argument killed.

Fuck, this is simply amazing. I can't believe there isn't more support for used games.

Oh I fully support used games and our ability to sell the ones we buy when we're done. I just don't support us complaining about a company trying ti work it's way out of debt with optional material. And even more ridiculous is you're like TIME ARE TOUGH I NEED THIS 10 DOLLARS, but I pre-ordered Dragon Age 2! I'm getting SUCH a sweet deal! Hoo yeah!

It's silly, you don't need what you get for the 10 bucks. EA isn't holding the disk hostage until you pay, you can still play the game.

Let's use Battlefield 3. Is the focus of that game single-player or multiplayer?

It's focused on both actually. It's going to have a campaign and they're putting a lot of work into it. Didn't you know that?

But which will you play more?
Also, Call of Duty has a campaign, but it's lasting quality is clearly multiplayer.

The point is the Singly player doesn't cost the publisher/developer money the muliplayer component does. If you are not going to compensate the publisher for the resources their offering you have no right to be on their servers, period.

Let's put it this way. The original buyer paid his dues, and you're taking his spot. He no longer has multiplayer access, you do. If there were 100 people playing multiplayer, and he sold it to gamestop, there would be 99 people playing multiplayer with enough money in the system for 100. If you then buy that game, it's back up to 100. Unless by buying the game, you somehow shifted that number up to 101, you aren't giving the company any additional server costs. Also, this is ignoring the fact that Xbox 360 and PC games are hosted by the players; the only time you're actually paying for server upkeep is on the PS3 or on an MMO.

Self hosted through a service (XBL) and sometimes the matchmaking service is needed in games that also needs upkeep. ALso they need to store your profile on their servers or locally, so statistically yes the playerbase went up to 101.

For your first point, the theaters make a difference, but not as much as you're implying. When the most expensive game in history (GTA IV) was around $100 million in dev costs, and the most expensive movie in history (Avatar) was $500 million in production costs, you have to wonder where the extra money the game devs are charging came from.

Sources:

http://most-expensive.net/top-5-movies

http://www.digitalbattle.com/2010/02/20/top-10-most-expensive-video-games-budgets-ever/

As for the videogame costs, PC matchmaking is done on the users' end, while XBL costs are covered by, well, Xbox Live fees. Like I said, the only system where the devs/publishers have anything to do with server upkeep is the PS3, which has dedicated servers that, to the best of my knowledge, are not run by the users.

Original players have a expected average game play life span that is factored into the costs of video games prior to the original sale of of a product when you start bringing in used sales into the equation you knock out the balance those positions are no longer emptying as was originally expected or budgeted for because the only information they have to go on namely sales and account play periods simply isn't adding up.

And this is just a ridiculous notion. If that were the case, they'd charge a fee after a certain amount of time played by an individual; there's still people playing Doom and the original Quake online, yet id sofware hasn't been crying abut how those players have overstayed their welcome.

 

[Blindswordmaster]

It's not extra content, it's on the fucking disc. Have you never bought a used game?

So if the $10 online content had to be downloaded you wouldn't mind?

Yes. If I bought a game and there was no multiplayer button and then I put in this code, downloaded the thing, and multiplayer was available, then that would be fine.

I really, really doubt that.

Why? At least then I don't know that I'm being fucked.

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

It's not extra content, it's on the fucking disc. Have you never bought a used game?

So if the $10 online content had to be downloaded you wouldn't mind?

Yes. If I bought a game and there was no multiplayer button and then I put in this code, downloaded the thing, and multiplayer was available, then that would be fine.

I really, really doubt that.

Why? At least then I don't know that I'm being fucked.

Because your entire post log here stinks of a self entitled twat.

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.

EA has every right to charge you. If you want access to the full content, buy the game from the publisher, not a third party. The used game market takes away multiple sales from the publisher/developers, so it makes perfect sense for them to charge you to use extra content.

It's not extra content, it's on the fucking disc. Have you never bought a used game?

I should have worded that better. But my point stands. If you want full access to a game, pay the company. Your getting a game they made at a lower price, without paying them anything, and you expect to take up their multiplayer servers for free? Bandwidth costs money, so it is only fair that they get compensated for bills that you rack up.

Then put out DLC. New maps, I'll gladly pay for new maps!

I wouldn't unless there were enough maps to call it an expansion pack. This generation has been heavy on the customer gouging, to the point that it's pretty much driven me away from buying the mainstream titles. To all the people that quoted me: thank you for proving my point. Yes, the companies deserve to get paid. But they don't deserve to nickel and dime me for all I'm worth, nor do they deserve to charge whatever the heck they want, and expect me to pay it. I haven't paid full price for a game since Mazes of Fate on the GBA, and then it was because it was made by a small developer and I needed to grab a copy before it pretty much permanently disappeared into the hands of collectors.

Developers can cry all they want about how they're losing money, but a AAA game costs significantly less to make than a blockbuster movie, yet they charge us much more than Hollywood could ever dream of charging. PR agents are not the consumer's friend -- and neither is any company who wants their money.

AAA devs don't have movie theaters, WHABLAM argument killed.

Fuck, this is simply amazing. I can't believe there isn't more support for used games.

Oh I fully support used games and our ability to sell the ones we buy when we're done. I just don't support us complaining about a company trying ti work it's way out of debt with optional material. And even more ridiculous is you're like TIME ARE TOUGH I NEED THIS 10 DOLLARS, but I pre-ordered Dragon Age 2! I'm getting SUCH a sweet deal! Hoo yeah!

It's silly, you don't need what you get for the 10 bucks. EA isn't holding the disk hostage until you pay, you can still play the game.

Let's use Battlefield 3. Is the focus of that game single-player or multiplayer?

It's focused on both actually. It's going to have a campaign and they're putting a lot of work into it. Didn't you know that?

But which will you play more?
Also, Call of Duty has a campaign, but it's lasting quality is clearly multiplayer.

The point is the Singly player doesn't cost the publisher/developer money the muliplayer component does. If you are not going to compensate the publisher for the resources their offering you have no right to be on their servers, period.

Let's put it this way. The original buyer paid his dues, and you're taking his spot. He no longer has multiplayer access, you do. If there were 100 people playing multiplayer, and he sold it to gamestop, there would be 99 people playing multiplayer with enough money in the system for 100. If you then buy that game, it's back up to 100. Unless by buying the game, you somehow shifted that number up to 101, you aren't giving the company any additional server costs. Also, this is ignoring the fact that Xbox 360 and PC games are hosted by the players; the only time you're actually paying for server upkeep is on the PS3 or on an MMO.

Self hosted through a service (XBL) and sometimes the matchmaking service is needed in games that also needs upkeep. ALso they need to store your profile on their servers or locally, so statistically yes the playerbase went up to 101.

For your first point, the theaters make a difference, but not as much as you're implying. When the most expensive game in history (GTA IV) was around $100 million in dev costs, and the most expensive movie in history (Avatar) was $500 million in production costs, you have to wonder where the extra money the game devs are charging came from.

Sources:

http://most-expensive.net/top-5-movies

http://www.digitalbattle.com/2010/02/20/top-10-most-expensive-video-games-budgets-ever/

As for the videogame costs, PC matchmaking is done on the users' end, while XBL costs are covered by, well, Xbox Live fees. Like I said, the only system where the devs/publishers have anything to do with server upkeep is the PS3, which has dedicated servers that, to the best of my knowledge, are not run by the users.

Original players have a expected average game play life span that is factored into the costs of video games prior to the original sale of of a product when you start bringing in used sales into the equation you knock out the balance those positions are no longer emptying as was originally expected or budgeted for because the only information they have to go on namely sales and account play periods simply isn't adding up.

And this is just a ridiculous notion. If that were the case, they'd charge a fee after a certain amount of time played by an individual; there's still people playing Doom and the original Quake online, yet id sofware hasn't been crying abut how those players have overstayed their welcome.

ID doesn't pay for the upkeep of those servers.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

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.

Why should they? A used sale gives them the same amount of money that a pirated copy does. They have every right to withhold content in used copies to encourage people to buy it new so they can make a profit.

No, they should encourage people to buy new, not punish the impoverished for buying used. Like Dragon Age 2: I pre-ordered so I'm getting a fuck ton of extra goodies and exclusive weapons. That's the right way to do it.

Day 1 DLC needs to die. In a fire. Slowly. Withholding content from used copies is one thing, fucking a paying consumer out of content is another.

What's the difference?

My money is going to the publishers and developers. I'm paying a hefty sum because I thought enough of their product to risk dropping 64$ on it. Day 1 DLC is basically saying: glad you like it, now give us more money to get the full game.

But they're still fucking a legitimate consumer out of extra money. He didn't steal the game, he bought it a few months after it came out after someone else played it.
Also, DLC may be made between when the game is finished and shipped. You're getting extra stuff, not being denied a complete product.

I was thinking of things like Fable 3. Black Dye DLC and things like it. Unrelated, I can't access characters like Shale in DA or Zaeed in ME2 because I don't have LIVE. I really hate not being able to access things I pay for.

THAT IS MY FUCKING POINT!!!

You didn't pay money to the people that made the game. I did.

I did too, but I may eventually sell this game and I'm looking out for the guy next on my copy.

I appreciate the sentiment, I really do. I'm just looking out for developers like Atlus who are struggling to make a profit right now. Between piracy, rampant used game sales, and publishers hoarding profits, developers need any help they can get.

 

[Blindswordmaster]

It's not extra content, it's on the fucking disc. Have you never bought a used game?

So if the $10 online content had to be downloaded you wouldn't mind?

Yes. If I bought a game and there was no multiplayer button and then I put in this code, downloaded the thing, and multiplayer was available, then that would be fine.

Oh. Okay.

I find that very odd. In both cases you are paying an extra $10 to add online functions to your used copy. Why does it annoy you so much more the content is already on the disc?

Because it's the difference between being denied multiplayer and offered multiplayer. If I bought Bulletstorm and then later I found out that I could buy multiplayer for 10 dollars, I'd be overjoyed. "This game I love, can get better for only 10 dollars! Fucking awesome!"

 

[oplinger]

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.

EA has every right to charge you. If you want access to the full content, buy the game from the publisher, not a third party. The used game market takes away multiple sales from the publisher/developers, so it makes perfect sense for them to charge you to use extra content.

It's not extra content, it's on the fucking disc. Have you never bought a used game?

I should have worded that better. But my point stands. If you want full access to a game, pay the company. Your getting a game they made at a lower price, without paying them anything, and you expect to take up their multiplayer servers for free? Bandwidth costs money, so it is only fair that they get compensated for bills that you rack up.

Then put out DLC. New maps, I'll gladly pay for new maps!

I wouldn't unless there were enough maps to call it an expansion pack. This generation has been heavy on the customer gouging, to the point that it's pretty much driven me away from buying the mainstream titles. To all the people that quoted me: thank you for proving my point. Yes, the companies deserve to get paid. But they don't deserve to nickel and dime me for all I'm worth, nor do they deserve to charge whatever the heck they want, and expect me to pay it. I haven't paid full price for a game since Mazes of Fate on the GBA, and then it was because it was made by a small developer and I needed to grab a copy before it pretty much permanently disappeared into the hands of collectors.

Developers can cry all they want about how they're losing money, but a AAA game costs significantly less to make than a blockbuster movie, yet they charge us much more than Hollywood could ever dream of charging. PR agents are not the consumer's friend -- and neither is any company who wants their money.

AAA devs don't have movie theaters, WHABLAM argument killed.

Fuck, this is simply amazing. I can't believe there isn't more support for used games.

Oh I fully support used games and our ability to sell the ones we buy when we're done. I just don't support us complaining about a company trying ti work it's way out of debt with optional material. And even more ridiculous is you're like TIME ARE TOUGH I NEED THIS 10 DOLLARS, but I pre-ordered Dragon Age 2! I'm getting SUCH a sweet deal! Hoo yeah!

It's silly, you don't need what you get for the 10 bucks. EA isn't holding the disk hostage until you pay, you can still play the game.

Let's use Battlefield 3. Is the focus of that game single-player or multiplayer?

It's focused on both actually. It's going to have a campaign and they're putting a lot of work into it. Didn't you know that?

But which will you play more?
Also, Call of Duty has a campaign, but it's lasting quality is clearly multiplayer.

The point is the Singly player doesn't cost the publisher/developer money the muliplayer component does. If you are not going to compensate the publisher for the resources their offering you have no right to be on their servers, period.

Let's put it this way. The original buyer paid his dues, and you're taking his spot. He no longer has multiplayer access, you do. If there were 100 people playing multiplayer, and he sold it to gamestop, there would be 99 people playing multiplayer with enough money in the system for 100. If you then buy that game, it's back up to 100. Unless by buying the game, you somehow shifted that number up to 101, you aren't giving the company any additional server costs. Also, this is ignoring the fact that Xbox 360 and PC games are hosted by the players; the only time you're actually paying for server upkeep is on the PS3 or on an MMO.

Self hosted through a service (XBL) and sometimes the matchmaking service is needed in games that also needs upkeep. ALso they need to store your profile on their servers or locally, so statistically yes the playerbase went up to 101.

For your first point, the theaters make a difference, but not as much as you're implying. When the most expensive game in history (GTA IV) was around $100 million in dev costs, and the most expensive movie in history (Avatar) was $500 million in production costs, you have to wonder where the extra money the game devs are charging came from.

Sources:

http://most-expensive.net/top-5-movies

http://www.digitalbattle.com/2010/02/20/top-10-most-expensive-video-games-budgets-ever/

As for the videogame costs, PC matchmaking is done on the users' end, while XBL costs are covered by, well, Xbox Live fees. Like I said, the only system where the devs/publishers have anything to do with server upkeep is the PS3, which has dedicated servers that, to the best of my knowledge, are not run by the users.

Okay so by your sources here...X-men the last stand there had a budget of...210? but earned what in theaters? what's that say? excuse me? 459 MILLION? that's like double what they payed for, box office alone.

No. Go home. It is as much as I was implying.

 

[Signa]

Sorry OP, I agree with your frustrations, but not your assertions. If you buy the game used, and you want to use their online servers, which they are paying money for, then some of the money you paid should be going to help support those online servers. Buying used is the same as piracy to the financial well-being of those servers, and the cold hard truth is that you did nothing to deserve playing on them.
EDIT: Never mind. Owyn_Merrilin made a great point that I failed to consider that renders mine moot. I still don't have much of a problem with the concept of supporting the companies that made the game if you aren't actually paying them to begin with though.

 

[Blindswordmaster]

Fuck, this is simply amazing. I can't believe there isn't more support for used games.

By buying used you are not a customer of said Publisher or Game Developer anymore but a "GameStop" customer (or whoever else sold you the stuff), don't complain about the Publishers trying to protect their financial investments, go complain to wherever you bought it from that you don't get all the content.

Your example of Dragon Age is another one of those games btw. that did not come complete if you got them used e.g. Shale was missing.
Steam solved the problem by not allowing to resell games at all e.g. binding them to a certain account, a lot of games using keys to register/for multiplayer like the Battlefield series, most MMOs, Blizzard games etc. do the same.

If you buy used you might aswell go ahead and pirate cause you aren't helping the dev/publisher or giving them any money, you're just helping a parasitary retail-chain to grow into an even bigger parasite.

On Steam, ture but Steam games don't cost 60 dollars. Fuck I'd buy every game new if they cost 50 or 40. Shit, at 40 i'd probably buy even more games. I'd get three games in March instead of only one.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

It's not extra content, it's on the fucking disc. Have you never bought a used game?

So if the $10 online content had to be downloaded you wouldn't mind?

Yes. If I bought a game and there was no multiplayer button and then I put in this code, downloaded the thing, and multiplayer was available, then that would be fine.

I really, really doubt that.

Why? At least then I don't know that I'm being fucked.

Because your entire post log here stinks of a self entitled twat.

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.

EA has every right to charge you. If you want access to the full content, buy the game from the publisher, not a third party. The used game market takes away multiple sales from the publisher/developers, so it makes perfect sense for them to charge you to use extra content.

It's not extra content, it's on the fucking disc. Have you never bought a used game?

I should have worded that better. But my point stands. If you want full access to a game, pay the company. Your getting a game they made at a lower price, without paying them anything, and you expect to take up their multiplayer servers for free? Bandwidth costs money, so it is only fair that they get compensated for bills that you rack up.

Then put out DLC. New maps, I'll gladly pay for new maps!

I wouldn't unless there were enough maps to call it an expansion pack. This generation has been heavy on the customer gouging, to the point that it's pretty much driven me away from buying the mainstream titles. To all the people that quoted me: thank you for proving my point. Yes, the companies deserve to get paid. But they don't deserve to nickel and dime me for all I'm worth, nor do they deserve to charge whatever the heck they want, and expect me to pay it. I haven't paid full price for a game since Mazes of Fate on the GBA, and then it was because it was made by a small developer and I needed to grab a copy before it pretty much permanently disappeared into the hands of collectors.

Developers can cry all they want about how they're losing money, but a AAA game costs significantly less to make than a blockbuster movie, yet they charge us much more than Hollywood could ever dream of charging. PR agents are not the consumer's friend -- and neither is any company who wants their money.

AAA devs don't have movie theaters, WHABLAM argument killed.

Fuck, this is simply amazing. I can't believe there isn't more support for used games.

Oh I fully support used games and our ability to sell the ones we buy when we're done. I just don't support us complaining about a company trying ti work it's way out of debt with optional material. And even more ridiculous is you're like TIME ARE TOUGH I NEED THIS 10 DOLLARS, but I pre-ordered Dragon Age 2! I'm getting SUCH a sweet deal! Hoo yeah!

It's silly, you don't need what you get for the 10 bucks. EA isn't holding the disk hostage until you pay, you can still play the game.

Let's use Battlefield 3. Is the focus of that game single-player or multiplayer?

It's focused on both actually. It's going to have a campaign and they're putting a lot of work into it. Didn't you know that?

But which will you play more?
Also, Call of Duty has a campaign, but it's lasting quality is clearly multiplayer.

The point is the Singly player doesn't cost the publisher/developer money the muliplayer component does. If you are not going to compensate the publisher for the resources their offering you have no right to be on their servers, period.

Let's put it this way. The original buyer paid his dues, and you're taking his spot. He no longer has multiplayer access, you do. If there were 100 people playing multiplayer, and he sold it to gamestop, there would be 99 people playing multiplayer with enough money in the system for 100. If you then buy that game, it's back up to 100. Unless by buying the game, you somehow shifted that number up to 101, you aren't giving the company any additional server costs. Also, this is ignoring the fact that Xbox 360 and PC games are hosted by the players; the only time you're actually paying for server upkeep is on the PS3 or on an MMO.

Self hosted through a service (XBL) and sometimes the matchmaking service is needed in games that also needs upkeep. ALso they need to store your profile on their servers or locally, so statistically yes the playerbase went up to 101.

For your first point, the theaters make a difference, but not as much as you're implying. When the most expensive game in history (GTA IV) was around $100 million in dev costs, and the most expensive movie in history (Avatar) was $500 million in production costs, you have to wonder where the extra money the game devs are charging came from.

Sources:

http://most-expensive.net/top-5-movies

http://www.digitalbattle.com/2010/02/20/top-10-most-expensive-video-games-budgets-ever/

As for the videogame costs, PC matchmaking is done on the users' end, while XBL costs are covered by, well, Xbox Live fees. Like I said, the only system where the devs/publishers have anything to do with server upkeep is the PS3, which has dedicated servers that, to the best of my knowledge, are not run by the users.

Original players have a expected average game play life span that is factored into the costs of video games prior to the original sale of of a product when you start bringing in used sales into the equation you knock out the balance those positions are no longer emptying as was originally expected or budgeted for because the only information they have to go on namely sales and account play periods simply isn't adding up.

And this is just a ridiculous notion. If that were the case, they'd charge a fee after a certain amount of time played by an individual; there's still people playing Doom and the original Quake online, yet id sofware hasn't been crying abut how those players have overstayed their welcome.

ID doesn't pay for the upkeep of those servers.

Funny, because this whole time I've been saying that EA pays nothing for their servers either -- especially on the 360, where there's no such thing as a server, and any costs incurred by Xbox Live are covered by what you pay Microsoft. Where exactly is the difference?

 

[Blindswordmaster]

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.

Why should they? A used sale gives them the same amount of money that a pirated copy does. They have every right to withhold content in used copies to encourage people to buy it new so they can make a profit.

No, they should encourage people to buy new, not punish the impoverished for buying used. Like Dragon Age 2: I pre-ordered so I'm getting a fuck ton of extra goodies and exclusive weapons. That's the right way to do it.

Day 1 DLC needs to die. In a fire. Slowly. Withholding content from used copies is one thing, fucking a paying consumer out of content is another.

What's the difference?

My money is going to the publishers and developers. I'm paying a hefty sum because I thought enough of their product to risk dropping 64$ on it. Day 1 DLC is basically saying: glad you like it, now give us more money to get the full game.

But they're still fucking a legitimate consumer out of extra money. He didn't steal the game, he bought it a few months after it came out after someone else played it.
Also, DLC may be made between when the game is finished and shipped. You're getting extra stuff, not being denied a complete product.

I was thinking of things like Fable 3. Black Dye DLC and things like it. Unrelated, I can't access characters like Shale in DA or Zaeed in ME2 because I don't have LIVE. I really hate not being able to access things I pay for.

THAT IS MY FUCKING POINT!!!

You didn't pay money to the people that made the game. I did.

I did too, but I may eventually sell this game and I'm looking out for the guy next on my copy.

I appreciate the sentiment, I really do. I'm just looking out for developers like Atlus who are struggling to make a profit right now. Between piracy, rampant used game sales, and publishers hoarding profits, developers need any help they can get.

Then change things with publishers, make games cheaper, don't fuck the working Joes who want to save 10 dollars.

 

[Blindswordmaster]

It's not extra content, it's on the fucking disc. Have you never bought a used game?

So if the $10 online content had to be downloaded you wouldn't mind?

Yes. If I bought a game and there was no multiplayer button and then I put in this code, downloaded the thing, and multiplayer was available, then that would be fine.

I really, really doubt that.

Why? At least then I don't know that I'm being fucked.

Because your entire post log here stinks of a self entitled twat.

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.

EA has every right to charge you. If you want access to the full content, buy the game from the publisher, not a third party. The used game market takes away multiple sales from the publisher/developers, so it makes perfect sense for them to charge you to use extra content.

It's not extra content, it's on the fucking disc. Have you never bought a used game?

I should have worded that better. But my point stands. If you want full access to a game, pay the company. Your getting a game they made at a lower price, without paying them anything, and you expect to take up their multiplayer servers for free? Bandwidth costs money, so it is only fair that they get compensated for bills that you rack up.

Then put out DLC. New maps, I'll gladly pay for new maps!

I wouldn't unless there were enough maps to call it an expansion pack. This generation has been heavy on the customer gouging, to the point that it's pretty much driven me away from buying the mainstream titles. To all the people that quoted me: thank you for proving my point. Yes, the companies deserve to get paid. But they don't deserve to nickel and dime me for all I'm worth, nor do they deserve to charge whatever the heck they want, and expect me to pay it. I haven't paid full price for a game since Mazes of Fate on the GBA, and then it was because it was made by a small developer and I needed to grab a copy before it pretty much permanently disappeared into the hands of collectors.

Developers can cry all they want about how they're losing money, but a AAA game costs significantly less to make than a blockbuster movie, yet they charge us much more than Hollywood could ever dream of charging. PR agents are not the consumer's friend -- and neither is any company who wants their money.

AAA devs don't have movie theaters, WHABLAM argument killed.

Fuck, this is simply amazing. I can't believe there isn't more support for used games.

Oh I fully support used games and our ability to sell the ones we buy when we're done. I just don't support us complaining about a company trying ti work it's way out of debt with optional material. And even more ridiculous is you're like TIME ARE TOUGH I NEED THIS 10 DOLLARS, but I pre-ordered Dragon Age 2! I'm getting SUCH a sweet deal! Hoo yeah!

It's silly, you don't need what you get for the 10 bucks. EA isn't holding the disk hostage until you pay, you can still play the game.

Let's use Battlefield 3. Is the focus of that game single-player or multiplayer?

It's focused on both actually. It's going to have a campaign and they're putting a lot of work into it. Didn't you know that?

But which will you play more?
Also, Call of Duty has a campaign, but it's lasting quality is clearly multiplayer.

The point is the Singly player doesn't cost the publisher/developer money the muliplayer component does. If you are not going to compensate the publisher for the resources their offering you have no right to be on their servers, period.

Let's put it this way. The original buyer paid his dues, and you're taking his spot. He no longer has multiplayer access, you do. If there were 100 people playing multiplayer, and he sold it to gamestop, there would be 99 people playing multiplayer with enough money in the system for 100. If you then buy that game, it's back up to 100. Unless by buying the game, you somehow shifted that number up to 101, you aren't giving the company any additional server costs. Also, this is ignoring the fact that Xbox 360 and PC games are hosted by the players; the only time you're actually paying for server upkeep is on the PS3 or on an MMO.

Self hosted through a service (XBL) and sometimes the matchmaking service is needed in games that also needs upkeep. ALso they need to store your profile on their servers or locally, so statistically yes the playerbase went up to 101.

For your first point, the theaters make a difference, but not as much as you're implying. When the most expensive game in history (GTA IV) was around $100 million in dev costs, and the most expensive movie in history (Avatar) was $500 million in production costs, you have to wonder where the extra money the game devs are charging came from.

Sources:

http://most-expensive.net/top-5-movies

http://www.digitalbattle.com/2010/02/20/top-10-most-expensive-video-games-budgets-ever/

As for the videogame costs, PC matchmaking is done on the users' end, while XBL costs are covered by, well, Xbox Live fees. Like I said, the only system where the devs/publishers have anything to do with server upkeep is the PS3, which has dedicated servers that, to the best of my knowledge, are not run by the users.

Original players have a expected average game play life span that is factored into the costs of video games prior to the original sale of of a product when you start bringing in used sales into the equation you knock out the balance those positions are no longer emptying as was originally expected or budgeted for because the only information they have to go on namely sales and account play periods simply isn't adding up.

And this is just a ridiculous notion. If that were the case, they'd charge a fee after a certain amount of time played by an individual; there's still people playing Doom and the original Quake online, yet id sofware hasn't been crying abut how those players have overstayed their welcome.

ID doesn't pay for the upkeep of those servers.

Funny, because this whole time I've been saying that EA pays nothing for their servers either -- especially on the 360, where there's no such thing as a server, and any costs incurred by Xbox Live are covered by what you pay Microsoft. Where exactly is the difference?

Exactly, I already pay 10 dollars a month for my multiplayer, why do I need to pay another 10 dollars per game just because I wanted to save money?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

EA has every right to charge you. If you want access to the full content, buy the game from the publisher, not a third party. The used game market takes away multiple sales from the publisher/developers, so it makes perfect sense for them to charge you to use extra content.

It's not extra content, it's on the fucking disc. Have you never bought a used game?

I should have worded that better. But my point stands. If you want full access to a game, pay the company. Your getting a game they made at a lower price, without paying them anything, and you expect to take up their multiplayer servers for free? Bandwidth costs money, so it is only fair that they get compensated for bills that you rack up.

Then put out DLC. New maps, I'll gladly pay for new maps!

I wouldn't unless there were enough maps to call it an expansion pack. This generation has been heavy on the customer gouging, to the point that it's pretty much driven me away from buying the mainstream titles. To all the people that quoted me: thank you for proving my point. Yes, the companies deserve to get paid. But they don't deserve to nickel and dime me for all I'm worth, nor do they deserve to charge whatever the heck they want, and expect me to pay it. I haven't paid full price for a game since Mazes of Fate on the GBA, and then it was because it was made by a small developer and I needed to grab a copy before it pretty much permanently disappeared into the hands of collectors.

Developers can cry all they want about how they're losing money, but a AAA game costs significantly less to make than a blockbuster movie, yet they charge us much more than Hollywood could ever dream of charging. PR agents are not the consumer's friend -- and neither is any company who wants their money.

AAA devs don't have movie theaters, WHABLAM argument killed.

Fuck, this is simply amazing. I can't believe there isn't more support for used games.

Oh I fully support used games and our ability to sell the ones we buy when we're done. I just don't support us complaining about a company trying ti work it's way out of debt with optional material. And even more ridiculous is you're like TIME ARE TOUGH I NEED THIS 10 DOLLARS, but I pre-ordered Dragon Age 2! I'm getting SUCH a sweet deal! Hoo yeah!

It's silly, you don't need what you get for the 10 bucks. EA isn't holding the disk hostage until you pay, you can still play the game.

Let's use Battlefield 3. Is the focus of that game single-player or multiplayer?

It's focused on both actually. It's going to have a campaign and they're putting a lot of work into it. Didn't you know that?

But which will you play more?
Also, Call of Duty has a campaign, but it's lasting quality is clearly multiplayer.

The point is the Singly player doesn't cost the publisher/developer money the muliplayer component does. If you are not going to compensate the publisher for the resources their offering you have no right to be on their servers, period.

Let's put it this way. The original buyer paid his dues, and you're taking his spot. He no longer has multiplayer access, you do. If there were 100 people playing multiplayer, and he sold it to gamestop, there would be 99 people playing multiplayer with enough money in the system for 100. If you then buy that game, it's back up to 100. Unless by buying the game, you somehow shifted that number up to 101, you aren't giving the company any additional server costs. Also, this is ignoring the fact that Xbox 360 and PC games are hosted by the players; the only time you're actually paying for server upkeep is on the PS3 or on an MMO.

Self hosted through a service (XBL) and sometimes the matchmaking service is needed in games that also needs upkeep. ALso they need to store your profile on their servers or locally, so statistically yes the playerbase went up to 101.

For your first point, the theaters make a difference, but not as much as you're implying. When the most expensive game in history (GTA IV) was around $100 million in dev costs, and the most expensive movie in history (Avatar) was $500 million in production costs, you have to wonder where the extra money the game devs are charging came from.

Sources:

http://most-expensive.net/top-5-movies

http://www.digitalbattle.com/2010/02/20/top-10-most-expensive-video-games-budgets-ever/

As for the videogame costs, PC matchmaking is done on the users' end, while XBL costs are covered by, well, Xbox Live fees. Like I said, the only system where the devs/publishers have anything to do with server upkeep is the PS3, which has dedicated servers that, to the best of my knowledge, are not run by the users.

Okay so by your sources here...X-men the last stand there had a budget of...210? but earned what in theaters? what's that say? excuse me? 459 MILLION? that's like double what they payed for, box office alone.

No. Go home. It is as much as I was implying.

And Modern Warfare 2 made over a billion dollars at retail. That's a B, not an M. It cost $200 million to make, which means the list I had is a little bit outdated, but still, that's $800 million of pure profit, before they even released the DLC. Game devs aren't hurting, their customers are.

Edit: I forgot my source.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/05/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2-propels-revenue-profit-for-activision.html

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

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.

Why should they? A used sale gives them the same amount of money that a pirated copy does. They have every right to withhold content in used copies to encourage people to buy it new so they can make a profit.

No, they should encourage people to buy new, not punish the impoverished for buying used. Like Dragon Age 2: I pre-ordered so I'm getting a fuck ton of extra goodies and exclusive weapons. That's the right way to do it.

Day 1 DLC needs to die. In a fire. Slowly. Withholding content from used copies is one thing, fucking a paying consumer out of content is another.

What's the difference?

My money is going to the publishers and developers. I'm paying a hefty sum because I thought enough of their product to risk dropping 64$ on it. Day 1 DLC is basically saying: glad you like it, now give us more money to get the full game.

But they're still fucking a legitimate consumer out of extra money. He didn't steal the game, he bought it a few months after it came out after someone else played it.
Also, DLC may be made between when the game is finished and shipped. You're getting extra stuff, not being denied a complete product.

I was thinking of things like Fable 3. Black Dye DLC and things like it. Unrelated, I can't access characters like Shale in DA or Zaeed in ME2 because I don't have LIVE. I really hate not being able to access things I pay for.

THAT IS MY FUCKING POINT!!!

You didn't pay money to the people that made the game. I did.

I did too, but I may eventually sell this game and I'm looking out for the guy next on my copy.

I appreciate the sentiment, I really do. I'm just looking out for developers like Atlus who are struggling to make a profit right now. Between piracy, rampant used game sales, and publishers hoarding profits, developers need any help they can get.

Then change things with publishers, make games cheaper, don't fuck the working Joes who want to save 10 dollars.

Atlus is on your side. Persona 4, a 60+ hour RPG, retailed at 40$ AND came with a free soundtrack of the game. NIS games that sale at retail routinely come with extras like an artbook (Hyperdimension Neptunia). Maybe you buy from different people, but the publishers/devs I buy from deserve defending. If that means 10$ to access features on used copies, then so be it.

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

It's not extra content, it's on the fucking disc. Have you never bought a used game?

So if the $10 online content had to be downloaded you wouldn't mind?

Yes. If I bought a game and there was no multiplayer button and then I put in this code, downloaded the thing, and multiplayer was available, then that would be fine.

I really, really doubt that.

Why? At least then I don't know that I'm being fucked.

Because your entire post log here stinks of a self entitled twat.

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.

EA has every right to charge you. If you want access to the full content, buy the game from the publisher, not a third party. The used game market takes away multiple sales from the publisher/developers, so it makes perfect sense for them to charge you to use extra content.

It's not extra content, it's on the fucking disc. Have you never bought a used game?

I should have worded that better. But my point stands. If you want full access to a game, pay the company. Your getting a game they made at a lower price, without paying them anything, and you expect to take up their multiplayer servers for free? Bandwidth costs money, so it is only fair that they get compensated for bills that you rack up.

Then put out DLC. New maps, I'll gladly pay for new maps!

I wouldn't unless there were enough maps to call it an expansion pack. This generation has been heavy on the customer gouging, to the point that it's pretty much driven me away from buying the mainstream titles. To all the people that quoted me: thank you for proving my point. Yes, the companies deserve to get paid. But they don't deserve to nickel and dime me for all I'm worth, nor do they deserve to charge whatever the heck they want, and expect me to pay it. I haven't paid full price for a game since Mazes of Fate on the GBA, and then it was because it was made by a small developer and I needed to grab a copy before it pretty much permanently disappeared into the hands of collectors.

Developers can cry all they want about how they're losing money, but a AAA game costs significantly less to make than a blockbuster movie, yet they charge us much more than Hollywood could ever dream of charging. PR agents are not the consumer's friend -- and neither is any company who wants their money.

AAA devs don't have movie theaters, WHABLAM argument killed.

Fuck, this is simply amazing. I can't believe there isn't more support for used games.

Oh I fully support used games and our ability to sell the ones we buy when we're done. I just don't support us complaining about a company trying ti work it's way out of debt with optional material. And even more ridiculous is you're like TIME ARE TOUGH I NEED THIS 10 DOLLARS, but I pre-ordered Dragon Age 2! I'm getting SUCH a sweet deal! Hoo yeah!

It's silly, you don't need what you get for the 10 bucks. EA isn't holding the disk hostage until you pay, you can still play the game.

Let's use Battlefield 3. Is the focus of that game single-player or multiplayer?

It's focused on both actually. It's going to have a campaign and they're putting a lot of work into it. Didn't you know that?

But which will you play more?
Also, Call of Duty has a campaign, but it's lasting quality is clearly multiplayer.

The point is the Singly player doesn't cost the publisher/developer money the muliplayer component does. If you are not going to compensate the publisher for the resources their offering you have no right to be on their servers, period.

Let's put it this way. The original buyer paid his dues, and you're taking his spot. He no longer has multiplayer access, you do. If there were 100 people playing multiplayer, and he sold it to gamestop, there would be 99 people playing multiplayer with enough money in the system for 100. If you then buy that game, it's back up to 100. Unless by buying the game, you somehow shifted that number up to 101, you aren't giving the company any additional server costs. Also, this is ignoring the fact that Xbox 360 and PC games are hosted by the players; the only time you're actually paying for server upkeep is on the PS3 or on an MMO.

Self hosted through a service (XBL) and sometimes the matchmaking service is needed in games that also needs upkeep. ALso they need to store your profile on their servers or locally, so statistically yes the playerbase went up to 101.

For your first point, the theaters make a difference, but not as much as you're implying. When the most expensive game in history (GTA IV) was around $100 million in dev costs, and the most expensive movie in history (Avatar) was $500 million in production costs, you have to wonder where the extra money the game devs are charging came from.

Sources:

http://most-expensive.net/top-5-movies

http://www.digitalbattle.com/2010/02/20/top-10-most-expensive-video-games-budgets-ever/

As for the videogame costs, PC matchmaking is done on the users' end, while XBL costs are covered by, well, Xbox Live fees. Like I said, the only system where the devs/publishers have anything to do with server upkeep is the PS3, which has dedicated servers that, to the best of my knowledge, are not run by the users.

Original players have a expected average game play life span that is factored into the costs of video games prior to the original sale of of a product when you start bringing in used sales into the equation you knock out the balance those positions are no longer emptying as was originally expected or budgeted for because the only information they have to go on namely sales and account play periods simply isn't adding up.

And this is just a ridiculous notion. If that were the case, they'd charge a fee after a certain amount of time played by an individual; there's still people playing Doom and the original Quake online, yet id sofware hasn't been crying abut how those players have overstayed their welcome.

ID doesn't pay for the upkeep of those servers.

Funny, because this whole time I've been saying that EA pays nothing for their servers either -- especially on the 360, where there's no such thing as a server, and any costs incurred by Xbox Live are covered by what you pay Microsoft. Where exactly is the difference?

I can't comment on the consoles I'm not a console player I'm a PC gamer and in the PC gamming world we've been moving quite steadily the last four to five years away from users hosting servers to the developers and publishers themselves hosting the servers.

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.

Why should they? A used sale gives them the same amount of money that a pirated copy does. They have every right to withhold content in used copies to encourage people to buy it new so they can make a profit.

No, they should encourage people to buy new, not punish the impoverished for buying used. Like Dragon Age 2: I pre-ordered so I'm getting a fuck ton of extra goodies and exclusive weapons. That's the right way to do it.

Day 1 DLC needs to die. In a fire. Slowly. Withholding content from used copies is one thing, fucking a paying consumer out of content is another.

What's the difference?

My money is going to the publishers and developers. I'm paying a hefty sum because I thought enough of their product to risk dropping 64$ on it. Day 1 DLC is basically saying: glad you like it, now give us more money to get the full game.

But they're still fucking a legitimate consumer out of extra money. He didn't steal the game, he bought it a few months after it came out after someone else played it.
Also, DLC may be made between when the game is finished and shipped. You're getting extra stuff, not being denied a complete product.

I was thinking of things like Fable 3. Black Dye DLC and things like it. Unrelated, I can't access characters like Shale in DA or Zaeed in ME2 because I don't have LIVE. I really hate not being able to access things I pay for.

THAT IS MY FUCKING POINT!!!

You didn't pay money to the people that made the game. I did.

I did too, but I may eventually sell this game and I'm looking out for the guy next on my copy.

I appreciate the sentiment, I really do. I'm just looking out for developers like Atlus who are struggling to make a profit right now. Between piracy, rampant used game sales, and publishers hoarding profits, developers need any help they can get.

Then change things with publishers, make games cheaper, don't fuck the working Joes who want to save 10 dollars.

Video games a luxury their a simply piece of toy if you can't afford them find another fucking hobby.

 

[Katana314]

And Modern Warfare 2 made over a billion dollars at retail. That's a B, not an M. It cost $200 million to make, which means the list I had is a little bit outdated, but still, that's $800 million of pure profit, before they even released the DLC. Game devs aren't hurting, their customers are.

I'm sorry, but that's over-generalizing. X game made an immense profit, so companies are wrong? You don't even need me to point out the issue here.

 

[oplinger]

[

And Modern Warfare 2 made over a billion dollars at retail. That's a B, not an M. It cost $200 million to make, which means the list I had is a little bit outdated, but still, that's $800 million of pure profit, before they even released the DLC. Game devs aren't hurting, their customers are.

Actually that 800 in "pure profit" went mostly to activision. Not the devs. Devs are hurting, Activision-blizzard is not. EA however is in a giant hole of debt. Like most people in the gaming industry. DRM hurts customers, 10 dollars for optional junk doesn't.

It's not that this is hurting us, it is in fact:

Spoiler

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

It's not extra content, it's on the fucking disc. Have you never bought a used game?

So if the $10 online content had to be downloaded you wouldn't mind?

Yes. If I bought a game and there was no multiplayer button and then I put in this code, downloaded the thing, and multiplayer was available, then that would be fine.

I really, really doubt that.

Why? At least then I don't know that I'm being fucked.

Because your entire post log here stinks of a self entitled twat.

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.

EA has every right to charge you. If you want access to the full content, buy the game from the publisher, not a third party. The used game market takes away multiple sales from the publisher/developers, so it makes perfect sense for them to charge you to use extra content.

It's not extra content, it's on the fucking disc. Have you never bought a used game?

I should have worded that better. But my point stands. If you want full access to a game, pay the company. Your getting a game they made at a lower price, without paying them anything, and you expect to take up their multiplayer servers for free? Bandwidth costs money, so it is only fair that they get compensated for bills that you rack up.

Then put out DLC. New maps, I'll gladly pay for new maps!

I wouldn't unless there were enough maps to call it an expansion pack. This generation has been heavy on the customer gouging, to the point that it's pretty much driven me away from buying the mainstream titles. To all the people that quoted me: thank you for proving my point. Yes, the companies deserve to get paid. But they don't deserve to nickel and dime me for all I'm worth, nor do they deserve to charge whatever the heck they want, and expect me to pay it. I haven't paid full price for a game since Mazes of Fate on the GBA, and then it was because it was made by a small developer and I needed to grab a copy before it pretty much permanently disappeared into the hands of collectors.

Developers can cry all they want about how they're losing money, but a AAA game costs significantly less to make than a blockbuster movie, yet they charge us much more than Hollywood could ever dream of charging. PR agents are not the consumer's friend -- and neither is any company who wants their money.

AAA devs don't have movie theaters, WHABLAM argument killed.

Fuck, this is simply amazing. I can't believe there isn't more support for used games.

Oh I fully support used games and our ability to sell the ones we buy when we're done. I just don't support us complaining about a company trying ti work it's way out of debt with optional material. And even more ridiculous is you're like TIME ARE TOUGH I NEED THIS 10 DOLLARS, but I pre-ordered Dragon Age 2! I'm getting SUCH a sweet deal! Hoo yeah!

It's silly, you don't need what you get for the 10 bucks. EA isn't holding the disk hostage until you pay, you can still play the game.

Let's use Battlefield 3. Is the focus of that game single-player or multiplayer?

It's focused on both actually. It's going to have a campaign and they're putting a lot of work into it. Didn't you know that?

But which will you play more?
Also, Call of Duty has a campaign, but it's lasting quality is clearly multiplayer.

The point is the Singly player doesn't cost the publisher/developer money the muliplayer component does. If you are not going to compensate the publisher for the resources their offering you have no right to be on their servers, period.

Let's put it this way. The original buyer paid his dues, and you're taking his spot. He no longer has multiplayer access, you do. If there were 100 people playing multiplayer, and he sold it to gamestop, there would be 99 people playing multiplayer with enough money in the system for 100. If you then buy that game, it's back up to 100. Unless by buying the game, you somehow shifted that number up to 101, you aren't giving the company any additional server costs. Also, this is ignoring the fact that Xbox 360 and PC games are hosted by the players; the only time you're actually paying for server upkeep is on the PS3 or on an MMO.

Self hosted through a service (XBL) and sometimes the matchmaking service is needed in games that also needs upkeep. ALso they need to store your profile on their servers or locally, so statistically yes the playerbase went up to 101.

For your first point, the theaters make a difference, but not as much as you're implying. When the most expensive game in history (GTA IV) was around $100 million in dev costs, and the most expensive movie in history (Avatar) was $500 million in production costs, you have to wonder where the extra money the game devs are charging came from.

Sources:

http://most-expensive.net/top-5-movies

http://www.digitalbattle.com/2010/02/20/top-10-most-expensive-video-games-budgets-ever/

As for the videogame costs, PC matchmaking is done on the users' end, while XBL costs are covered by, well, Xbox Live fees. Like I said, the only system where the devs/publishers have anything to do with server upkeep is the PS3, which has dedicated servers that, to the best of my knowledge, are not run by the users.

Original players have a expected average game play life span that is factored into the costs of video games prior to the original sale of of a product when you start bringing in used sales into the equation you knock out the balance those positions are no longer emptying as was originally expected or budgeted for because the only information they have to go on namely sales and account play periods simply isn't adding up.

And this is just a ridiculous notion. If that were the case, they'd charge a fee after a certain amount of time played by an individual; there's still people playing Doom and the original Quake online, yet id sofware hasn't been crying abut how those players have overstayed their welcome.

ID doesn't pay for the upkeep of those servers.

Funny, because this whole time I've been saying that EA pays nothing for their servers either -- especially on the 360, where there's no such thing as a server, and any costs incurred by Xbox Live are covered by what you pay Microsoft. Where exactly is the difference?

I can't comment on the consoles I'm not a console player I'm a PC gamer and in the PC gamming world we've been moving quite steadily the last four to five years away from users hosting servers to the developers and publishers themselves hosting the servers.

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.

Why should they? A used sale gives them the same amount of money that a pirated copy does. They have every right to withhold content in used copies to encourage people to buy it new so they can make a profit.

No, they should encourage people to buy new, not punish the impoverished for buying used. Like Dragon Age 2: I pre-ordered so I'm getting a fuck ton of extra goodies and exclusive weapons. That's the right way to do it.

Day 1 DLC needs to die. In a fire. Slowly. Withholding content from used copies is one thing, fucking a paying consumer out of content is another.

What's the difference?

My money is going to the publishers and developers. I'm paying a hefty sum because I thought enough of their product to risk dropping 64$ on it. Day 1 DLC is basically saying: glad you like it, now give us more money to get the full game.

But they're still fucking a legitimate consumer out of extra money. He didn't steal the game, he bought it a few months after it came out after someone else played it.
Also, DLC may be made between when the game is finished and shipped. You're getting extra stuff, not being denied a complete product.

I was thinking of things like Fable 3. Black Dye DLC and things like it. Unrelated, I can't access characters like Shale in DA or Zaeed in ME2 because I don't have LIVE. I really hate not being able to access things I pay for.

THAT IS MY FUCKING POINT!!!

You didn't pay money to the people that made the game. I did.

I did too, but I may eventually sell this game and I'm looking out for the guy next on my copy.

I appreciate the sentiment, I really do. I'm just looking out for developers like Atlus who are struggling to make a profit right now. Between piracy, rampant used game sales, and publishers hoarding profits, developers need any help they can get.

Then change things with publishers, make games cheaper, don't fuck the working Joes who want to save 10 dollars.

Video games a luxury their a simply piece of toy if you can't afford them find another fucking hobby.

What games have you been playing? Because the only one I know games I know of that are like that are the Left 4 Dead games, which still allow for the players to host their own games. Some of the games I've played have had a few publisher run servers, but even on those games, the vast majority are user run, and the publisher run servers were really just there to get servers up on day one.

 

[Alfid Zeiss]

I don't understand how the system of how to rent or used game is since I live in a country where you don't have those things and I don't think I can really say this but wouldn't it be better if you get a new copy to support the company that made it?
Does someone know the price of a used Dead Space 2?
and can someone tell me how the used system works in selling? is it based on condition?