F**K Project Ten dollar and others... let's take some actions

[Wakefield]

I don't have a problem with getting extra shit for buying new (ala project 10 dollars) You have the full game you just get a couple of extra little things for buying new.

What I take issue with is not getting the complete game for buying new. Hello, in 3 years you won't be able to find the game new and you'll be forced to shell out money if you want to play the damn game.

What.the.fuck.

 

[irishstormtrooper]

The people on all of the gaming podcasts I listen to are right about this: The only people who this affects, i.e. people who actually play sports games buy them new on day one, which, by my reckoning, means that this affects them exactly not at all. So, the few people complaining are just people who don't like it when companies try to actually (gasp) make money!

Goldman Sachs was only trying to *gasp* make money as well. But there has to be a line. When publishers are literally charging customers for NOTHING, which is the case here, then that can't be allowed to continue.

Yes, but then again, Goldmann-Sachs was betting with people's life savings in order to make billions of dollars at their expense. EA is trying to reduce money loss from used game sales and charging $10 for a feature that
a) I'm not sure all that many people use, and
b) isn't necessary to enjoy the game.

Also, don't bring up the American economy crash in analogies when arguing. It's like bringing up Hitler in arguments. You will always lose.

 

[Makon]

I'm actually a huge supporter of 'Project Ten Dollar', in that I hate the used games industry [ie: Gamestop]. Buying a used game lends no support what-so-ever to the developer of the game, they never see a dime of it. Buying a new copy, for only slightly more, gives me some extra content in exchange for supporting the developers.

Also, as a consumer, you have no 'video game rights', the industry can do whatever they want, when they want. If they want to make a new move to have all game cases colored pink and the manuals lined in fake fur, they can do it. You can whine about it all you want, but that won't change a thing.

 

[Sovvolf]

What I don't care for is for example Mass Effect 2's special edition that comes with a nifty armor you can only get by preordering it. That seems shady to me. It'd be one if they were like, hey we'll include it with the game if you pre order but you can pay for it down the road too (which I believe they did with Dragon Age which seems more fair to me.)

Yes I agree with that, though I don't think that's any thing to do with Ten dollar. I do believe that if they release exclusive content like that then you should, a few months down the line, be given the opportunity to buy that content.

 

[irishstormtrooper]

The people on all of the gaming podcasts I listen to are right about this: The only people who this affects, i.e. people who actually play sports games buy them new on day one, which, by my reckoning, means that this affects them exactly not at all. So, the few people complaining are just people who don't like it when companies try to actually (gasp) make money!

Goldman Sachs was only trying to *gasp* make money as well. But there has to be a line. When publishers are literally charging customers for NOTHING, which is the case here, then that can't be allowed to continue.

Yes, but then again, Goldmann-Sachs was betting with people's life savings in order to make billions of dollars at their expense. EA is trying to reduce money loss from used game sales and charging $10 for a feature that
a) I'm not sure all that many people use, and
b) isn't necessary to enjoy the game.

Also, don't bring up the American economy crash in analogies when arguing. It's like bringing up Hitler in arguments. You will always lose.

It works well in this case, though. Goldman Sachs was charging people money for what turned out to be nothing; items and inherent value based on pure speculation. Same thing here: they're charging the customer for NOTHING; a feature which has been included in hundreds of games for free within the last decade or two.

Whether it's necessary to enjoy the game or not is moot, the point is that it's a standard feature being withheld from customers for the sole purpose of putting a stranglehold on the market.

Yes, the Goldmann-Sachs analogy fits in some aspects, but it doesn't in others. For example, are you going to lose thousands of dollars if EA fucks up? The answer is no. Also, Goldmann-Sachs was trying to make extra money by deceiving (that's right, deceiving) their investors. EA is trying to counter the used-game market which is cutting into the developers' and publishers' profits, and they aren't betting that the $10 price tag on the online features will cause people to lose money.

Argument by analogy only works if the analogy fits in major aspects, which this doesn't.

 

[Sovvolf]

Whether it's necessary to enjoy the game or not is moot, the point is that it's a standard feature being withheld from customers for the sole purpose of putting a stranglehold on the market.

Stranglehold on the market?... no they are doing it because they are losing out on profit from all the used games that are being sold. These companies need to make profit some how, otherwise they go under. Also how many times are you going to need this explaining to you?... when you buy that used game from Gamestop, you are not their(The publishers) customer, none of that money is going to them, it's going to Gamestop. The publishers customers are getting that content, their customers paid the full price for the game. You didn't pay them so your not their customer so you don't get the content... you want the content, then pay the fee for the content.

I don't like this, if a game is actually good then people will likely not sell it and I'm okay with them giving free DLC to new with new games but taking away online play seems wrong and it worries me that EA is doing this because for now it may only be the sports games but if it works it could affect all EA games

Only taken away if you don't buy a full retail copy of the game, you can get back online with a small cost of $5. I don't see what's wrong about EA taking away online if you bough a used copy of the game. When you buy a used copy of the game EA doesn't make any money of it... so they don't get paid at all for you playing online.

 

[andrewb4117]

I don't like this, if a game is actually good then people will likely not sell it and I'm okay with them giving free DLC to new with new games but taking away online play seems wrong and it worries me that EA is doing this because for now it may only be the sports games but if it works it could affect all EA games

 

[andrewb4117]

Whether it's necessary to enjoy the game or not is moot, the point is that it's a standard feature being withheld from customers for the sole purpose of putting a stranglehold on the market.

Stranglehold on the market?... no they are doing it because they are losing out on profit from all the used games that are being sold. These companies need to make profit some how, otherwise they go under. Also how many times are you going to need this explaining to you?... when you buy that used game from Gamestop, you are not their(The publishers) customer, none of that money is going to them, it's going to Gamestop. The publishers customers are getting that content, their customers paid the full price for the game. You didn't pay them so your not their customer so you don't get the content... you want the content, then pay the fee for the content.

I don't like this, if a game is actually good then people will likely not sell it and I'm okay with them giving free DLC to new with new games but taking away online play seems wrong and it worries me that EA is doing this because for now it may only be the sports games but if it works it could affect all EA games

Only taken away if you don't buy a full retail copy of the game, you can get back online with a small cost of $5. I don't see what's wrong about EA taking away online if you bough a used copy of the game. When you buy a used copy of the game EA doesn't make any money of it... so they don't get paid at all for you playing online.

isn't it $10.00? and I get the situation but Ea games is only doing this because they want more money I could maybe understand if they where in a financial situation but it just seems greedy shouldn't they give something like free DLC instead of taking something away I mean when another sports game is released in a year and someone wants to get a used cheaper copy of it it seems wrong to make them pay an extra $10.00 for it.

 

[Dioxide20]

If you really want to get them to stop, don't buy their games. Of course, you will have to get a whole lot of other people to follow your example, otherwise, they won't really care about your opposition.

I understand your point of them making you buy new games to get everything that you are promised when purchasing it. Removing content from people who buy used games is ridiculous. Its right up there with having to purchase DLC keys that unlock items already on the disc.

EDIT: This just crossed my mind. Buying a used game at Gamestop (specifically) will only net you about 10% off the full priced game. If thats the case, why even bother? Purchasing the DLC separately ends up costing more in the end...

But then again, that would only apply to just released titles.

 

[KSarty]

I don't see what the problem is. If you buy the game used then you have contributed nothing towards keeping those servers running, so why should you be allowed access to those servers? The same goes for dlc, if you bought used then you contributed nothing towards the development process so why should you by given that privilege?

And EA Sports doesn't have to pay to keep my game running.

If it is a game with online play, they do actually. Running enough servers to maintain a player base the size of most online games is not cheap. So as I said above, when you buy the game used you have contributed nothing toward the maintaining of those servers, so too bad but you aren't allowed to use them.

 

[andrewb4117]

I don't see what the problem is. If you buy the game used then you have contributed nothing towards keeping those servers running, so why should you be allowed access to those servers? The same goes for dlc, if you bought used then you contributed nothing towards the development process so why should you by given that privilege?

And EA Sports doesn't have to pay to keep my game running.

If it is a game with online play, they do actually. Running enough servers to maintain a player base the size of most online games is not cheap. So as I said above, when you buy the game used you have contributed nothing toward the maintaining of those servers, so too bad but you aren't allowed to use them.

I assumed that's why games are so $60.00 and they didn't make us pay extra for servers before why are they doing it now?

 

[KSarty]

I don't see what the problem is. If you buy the game used then you have contributed nothing towards keeping those servers running, so why should you be allowed access to those servers? The same goes for dlc, if you bought used then you contributed nothing towards the development process so why should you by given that privilege?

And EA Sports doesn't have to pay to keep my game running.

If it is a game with online play, they do actually. Running enough servers to maintain a player base the size of most online games is not cheap. So as I said above, when you buy the game used you have contributed nothing toward the maintaining of those servers, so too bad but you aren't allowed to use them.

I assumed that's why games are so $60.00 and they didn't make us pay extra for servers before why are they doing it now?

No, games cost $60 now because the developers have to pay Sony/Microsoft for the "privilege" of releasing the game on their consoles. That is why PC games still only cost $50, because developers don't have that fee when releasing on an open platform.

 

[Sovvolf]

You really expect me to believe that used games are all of a sudden a problem even though they've been around since the NES? And then after that you expect me to feel sorry for a multi-million dollar company like EA? ROFL.

Yes I expect you to believe that used games are all of as sudden a problem for the games industry. They've always been a problem although never this big. Maybe you need to look at this from the point of view of a games publisher. You set out a game, spend a shit load making it, then you release it. A few people buy it brand new, they play it, some trade it in and some pirate it, then trade it in. Okay now then once the first set is traded in, most people start to just buy the used games or get the pirated copy leaving very little actual sales going to you. So what do you do?. No bodies buying the full copy, your not making any money because of that. What do you do?. See the games industry is being sandwiched by both the popularity of second hand gaming and piracy. They are just trying to encourage people to buy the full game.

I don't expect you to feel sorry for EA I just hope you'll see the bigger picture. EA is one of the biggest out there and it's starting to struggle. What do you think happens when EA collapses?, a good amount of games developers will be taken with it. You seem to be under the impression that the video game industry is untouchable, however it's starting to collapse and EA are trying to just keep it back up. I hate EA on what they've done however I like video games and I don't want to see it collapse.

Guess what? Used game retailers need money to survive as well, and whether my money is going to them or the publisher, I AM PAYING FOR THE GAME.
Which means I expect the full game. Just as expect a full-featured product if I buy a used iPod from someone. Apple isn't going to see a cent of that money, but I don't hear them complaining.

Then take that up with the retailer and not the publisher, if your not paying the publisher then they don't owe you nothing. Your not paying them to go online, then they don't owe you a place online, your not paying them for that extra DLC, then they don't owe you for that extra DLC. Maybe the games retailer can make some DLC for you, seen as your paying them. Yes you are paying for the game, you got the game didn't you?. You want the extra stuff?... then pay the publisher.

How many times do I have to explain this to you? EA's only motive for doing this is greed. They aren't in any danger of going under, trust me.

Given that this is the first time this as been explained to me... probably once though your reason for doing so is totally unjustified seen as you can't see the bigger picture. I'd love for you to show me how they aren't in any danger?.

Ho and before the inevitable "You prove that they are" comes up here's a link explaining:

http://www.pspworld.com/sony-psp/news/eas-financial-troubles-caused-by-lack-of-innovation-012122.php

http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=353603

http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=422982

http://gadgetophilia.com/electronic-arts-posts-2nd-quarter-loss-adjusted-profit-cutting-1500-jobs-or-17-percent/

Whether it's necessary to enjoy the game or not is moot, the point is that it's a standard feature being withheld from customers for the sole purpose of putting a stranglehold on the market.

Stranglehold on the market?... no they are doing it because they are losing out on profit from all the used games that are being sold. These companies need to make profit some how, otherwise they go under. Also how many times are you going to need this explaining to you?... when you buy that used game from Gamestop, you are not their(The publishers) customer, none of that money is going to them, it's going to Gamestop. The publishers customers are getting that content, their customers paid the full price for the game. You didn't pay them so your not their customer so you don't get the content... you want the content, then pay the fee for the content.

I don't like this, if a game is actually good then people will likely not sell it and I'm okay with them giving free DLC to new with new games but taking away online play seems wrong and it worries me that EA is doing this because for now it may only be the sports games but if it works it could affect all EA games

Only taken away if you don't buy a full retail copy of the game, you can get back online with a small cost of $5. I don't see what's wrong about EA taking away online if you bough a used copy of the game. When you buy a used copy of the game EA doesn't make any money of it... so they don't get paid at all for you playing online.

isn't it $10.00? and I get the situation but Ea games is only doing this because they want more money I could maybe understand if they where in a financial situation but it just seems greedy shouldn't they give something like free DLC instead of taking something away I mean when another sports game is released in a year and someone wants to get a used cheaper copy of it it seems wrong to make them pay an extra $10.00 for it.

No for online it's $5 for the extra DLC it's $10. No EA aren't only doing it out of greed and they are in a financial situation. Read the above posts to Xzi... that will save a little time explaining.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

Seriously people how come we let our rights be stepped on by this sort of stuff and just complain in forums, we should flood the Customer Services of companies like THQ for taking away parts of the game just to annoy used-game players.

I live outside of the states, in my country there are no easy ways to get dollars, and now if I wanted to play UFC (and I'm guessing this is only the begining) online I'd have to start looking for a US credit card just to pay the greedy motherfuckers 5 dollars for a game I've already payed (overpriced as in all third world countries) for!?!
related: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100797-THQ-Joins-the-Used-Game-Fight

The measures they took for Bad Company 2, are kinda cool, they've been realeasing free dlc with the VIP code they give you, but they didn't fucking take away maps or online gaming altogether from the game for used ones!
Everything has a limit and we should start taking actions to stop this sort of punishment from publishers..

I Agree, let's make the Syndicate of Gamers !

 

[sheic99]

This. I don't have any sense of entitlement, I simply have a certain set of expectations inscribed into me through years of gaming. What gives publishers the right to suddenly charge more money for the same product they were offering in the past at a cheaper price?

They are not. The game costs exactly the same new as it did a year ago.

Indeed, and new is as much for schmucks as it was a year ago. A used market exists for every product. And when you buy ANY other used product, you get every feature of it. iPods, cars, furniture, whatever. This untrue only with games now.

Warranty?

A warranty is available even on many used products, whether it's through a retailer or still the original which just hasn't run out yet. But that's something you never get on games, whether new or used, so whatever. Point is, you still get use of a full product until it dies when you buy used, and the same should apply for games.

But unlike games, Ford doesn't have to pay to keep your car running.

And EA Sports doesn't have to pay to keep my game running. If they did, every game since the nineties would have been charging extra for online play-enabled copies. I love how they can make you assume you're actually paying for something worthwhile without even telling you that's the case. Quite a few people here have been trained quite well to just bend over and take whatever comes along next...

Because all of their servers are still running, right?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/97200-EA-Shutting-Down-Older-Game-Servers-in-February

You might want to pay attention to those dates, like '09 for example.

 

[RabidWombat]

Seriously people how come we let our rights be stepped on by this sort of stuff and just complain in forums, we should flood the Customer Services of companies like THQ for taking away parts of the game just to annoy used-game players.

I live outside of the states, in my country there are no easy ways to get dollars, and now if I wanted to play UFC (and I'm guessing this is only the begining) online I'd have to start looking for a US credit card just to pay the greedy motherfuckers 5 dollars for a game I've already payed (overpriced as in all third world countries) for!?!
related: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100797-THQ-Joins-the-Used-Game-Fight

The measures they took for Bad Company 2, are kinda cool, they've been realeasing free dlc with the VIP code they give you, but they didn't fucking take away maps or online gaming altogether from the game for used ones!
Everything has a limit and we should start taking actions to stop this sort of punishment from publishers..

He seem pretty mad bro

 

[oranger]

The reason people think its evil to try and chop out the "used game market" cuts to the same reason companies like EA games hate "pirates": its about ownership. gamers are still under the belief that they own the game that they've purchased on a "cash for carry out" basis, and so when a corporation messes with what the average gamer expects from what they've purchased, they get angry. Companies like EA want their cake, and so on, by saying we only have the rights they ascribe to us with the products they "sell" to us, and that they can put whatever DRM/software they want on said products. The latter is correct and natural, the former is not; I argue that a EULA is only binding when agreed to before sale. Without prior agreement, whatever the program does, its mine to lie to. This is a tangent. Excuse me.
The big problem here isn't really the ass-hat antics of these companies, I believe the real worry is that such behaviour will become standard because some of the big, aggressive, fairly evil game companies will it to be so.
Like wal-mart dictating PC box sizes, for example.
And THAT is what is nagging on the community.