The Monster That Is EA

[Sucal]

Am I the only one who actually supports the online pass? I mean, I buy most of my games used, but that's because I live in Australia. You know, the country where you can order in new games from Britain and america, and still buy them cheaper then from EBgames as used.

I mean, a lot of the time its not actually the publishers fault for prices and such but anyway..

What I was trying to say is that project ten dollar and all that is merely a way for the company to stay in business. If EA gets closed down, then it could be mass firings at Bioware, which means no more rpg goodness. As it has been said before by others, if you don't like online passes, buy the game new and actually support the game developer.

 

[squid5580]

What exactly are they withholding from the renter/borrower that will effect their decision to buy or not to buy exactly? You still get the core game regardless. The game mechanics are not withheld by the online pass. That should be enough for anyone to decide whether or not they like the game. The only thing mp changes is playing against people instead of bots.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Yes hacking XBL would be just as easy as PSN. You don't pay for security you pay because they know you will pay for it. A certain amount could go to security but when something makes half of your money for the year it is just a cash cow. No way Microsoft spends about 1/2 of their revenue on XBL security. If they did if a hacker or team of hackers wanted to they could still hack XBL. The only reason PSN has been hacked is that it has become an easy target and certain groups have deemed it a target in the first place. Also PSN was hacked once. The other hacks have been other services provided by Sony you can't hack PSN if it is offline.

Yes I should and so should EA if they own the servers you play on which they do unless they are on a P2P system. So EA is the owner of the servers and therefore well within their rights to ban you. If a Dev has their own servers(which they nearly always do) and they are the only servers available(which is the case on consoles unless it is P2P or a game with proper dedicated servers) they can stop you from using the online.

I never said they spend half of their revenue on security. That would be ridiculous. But they spend a small amount on security. And the idea that they simply ignore security just so they can pocket our money is absurd. We pay because it gives them more room to develop. The belief that they keep all of our subscription money for profit is an irrational conspiracy theory.

And you think the only reason that PSN was hacked rather than XBL was that they were "targeted"? Give me a fucking break. PSN was "targeted" because their security is childish. Do you know why? Because YOU DON'T PAY FOR THE SERVICE.

And no, they shouldn't be able to deny me service, because I paid for their game, and therefore deserve full access, unless I do something against their rules, that's how service works. You pay, and you get the full experience, unless you break the rules.

Well I'm sorry if that is not what you meant but the way you phrased it you sounded like basically all XBL money went to security. To be honest yes some does go security and other projects but the only reason XBL is the absurd amount it was and is (and then went up in price) is because they know you will pay a ridiculous amount for it.

No PSN being targeted is not the only reason they were hacked. I am sure there were and are other reasons but since every single thing Sony owns or runs is being hacked then yes I would have to say they are getting a lot of flak as they are being targeted. Thinking otherwise given that Sony has been hacked on about 6 different fronts in the last 2 months shows that some groups are out to get them. Once again it is not because you don't pay for PSN as a lot of these services are payed for. If people are determined enough they will hack something same as breaking into a house that is an unfortunate fact of life. Locks are just their as a deterrent but they will never really stop anyone.

Yes you bought the game preowned. That is perfectly fine but EA/whoever haven't seen a cent of that money. As I said if they do run servers which if it is server based multiplayer they most likely do those server costs money. Do you expect to play on those servers without having contributed anything(I say knowing that retailers do buy games off the pubs so they will only get money off more orders. You have to buy more for there to be more orders)? So to go back to Terms and conditions yes you have bought the right to play the game but you obviously haven't in EA's eyes bought the right to play the game online. Aside from that the online portion is not necessary in most games(games that require it are TF2, Quake Wars, etc).

To go back to your thing about "owning" things giving you full rights(I once again say this assuming a server based system is in use) in your train of thought EA are well within their rights to not let you play on their servers. Since they have a monopoly on servers you can't play the game online.

The only people this really affects are people in the one household (which yes this a bad side effect of their chosen method I am not saying it is not a bad side effect). I really don't see the problem with buying the game preowned and it costing the range of ?10-?20 and then paying and an extra ?10 that is really an optional part of the game anyway. Multiplayer is not the be all and end all a game unless it is designed to be a multiplayer game should be worth its selling price on single player alone. If it isn't why are you playing the game anyway. I really do not see the problem(aside from the one mentioned) about this and things like project ?10. I think paying about ?60 for a game and getting all subsequent DLC is not a particularly bad deal if the DLC is adequate.

 

[M4t3us]

So my question now is: Why are you still paying full retail for an expansion pack, when said retail comes with intrusive DRM and other devious crap?

Oh herp derp ALL SPORTS GAEMS R TEH SAME!!11!! I'm pretty sure that The difference between Fifa 10 and 11 (Both of which I have spent many, many hours on) than a lot sequels to "action" games. Also, when was the last time you bought a console game with DRM?

Sports games are not all the same, EA sports games are all the same, with the only noticeable differences being a slightly better graphical detail and a roster update... Come to think of it these last few instalments are, exclusively, the latter. When was the last time I bought a console game with DRM? Did the Saturn games have DRM? Because that's the last console I ever bought games for.

 

[GiantRaven]

EA isn't giving away server access for free. They run the servers, they pay the bills and the people to keep the servers running. $10 is the price to access something they pay to keep running. You pay the price, or you don't get the service.

I'm saddened that not one single person commented on the this because it was probably the single best point made in this thread. EA run their own multiplayer servers and therefore are incurring costs for running it.

Why should they let people play on that for free? I honestly don't see the problem here.

 

[M4t3us]

EA isn't giving away server access for free. They run the servers, they pay the bills and the people to keep the servers running. $10 is the price to access something they pay to keep running. You pay the price, or you don't get the service.

I'm saddened that not one single person commented on the this because it was probably the single best point made in this thread. EA run their own multiplayer servers and therefore are incurring costs for running it.

Why should they let people play on that for free? I honestly don't see the problem here.

A good point doesn't need encouragement, it can stand on its own very well. ^.^

Although I don't believe EA can't run/upgrade their servers with yearly releases of $60 (?50) expansion packs, which makes the extra $10 just a profit generator.

 

[-Samurai-]

EA isn't giving away server access for free. They run the servers, they pay the bills and the people to keep the servers running. $10 is the price to access something they pay to keep running. You pay the price, or you don't get the service.

I'm saddened that not one single person commented on the this because it was probably the single best point made in this thread. EA run their own multiplayer servers and therefore are incurring costs for running it.

Why should they let people play on that for free? I honestly don't see the problem here.

A good point doesn't need encouragement, it can stand on its own very well. ^.^

Although I don't believe EA can't run/upgrade their servers with yearly releases of $60 (?50) expansion packs, which makes the extra $10 just a profit generator.

They absolutely could, but they shouldn't and don't have to.

 

[M4t3us]

They absolutely could, but they shouldn't and don't have to.

Which is why I found your original post very good to stand on its own. I just had to comment because someone actually thought it needed an extra hand. ^.^

 

[Biodeamon]

Not just sports games, everything. they make the best games for every genre: prime examples are deadspace, crysis and dragon age.

 

[tODDly]

One thing to consider from EA's perspective is the cost of having/maintaining/updating the games servers.

You say you love NHL 11, me too.

I love the way they track all your stats, whether it is in a pick-up game or during a monthly league. They police it for cheaters, so things are fair. Keep track of who is D'connecting when losing, Etc. Etc. Etc.

They do a darn good job keeping all the machinery and manpower in place so you can enjoy these games online all year.

A ten dollar fee to a used game consumer is more than reasonable to allow that person access to all the great options found on the dedicated servers, online.


As to another point you make, and this is the one that baffles me... is why is it EVIL EA, and POOR GameStop. GameStop are the ripoff artists, buying your used game for a fraction of the price then selling it for twice as much.

EA just wants to get paid for the online services they provide, and not give it away for free.

 

[razer17]

So my question now is: Why are you still paying full retail for an expansion pack, when said retail comes with intrusive DRM and other devious crap?

Oh herp derp ALL SPORTS GAEMS R TEH SAME!!11!! I'm pretty sure that The difference between Fifa 10 and 11 (Both of which I have spent many, many hours on) than a lot sequels to "action" games. Also, when was the last time you bought a console game with DRM?

Sports games are not all the same, EA sports games are all the same, with the only noticeable differences being a slightly better graphical detail and a roster update... Come to think of it these last few instalments are, exclusively, the latter. When was the last time I bought a console game with DRM? Did the Saturn games have DRM? Because that's the last console I ever bought games for.

Okay, going on the NHL and Fifa games, by EA, the new editions are extremely different to the 2010 version. The physics engines for both games were completely overhauled.This makes the games so different from a gameplay standpoint that most sequels to "conventional" games can't compete.

Considering that they update the games with new rosters online anyway, so it isn't just a roster update.

I'd say the difference between Fifa 2003 and 2011 is bigger than the difference between Halo 1 and Halo Reach

And my point with the DRM thing is that there is no DRM on consoles, so that's a non-issue. And since you can't buy PC games used anyway it makes literally no point in the discussion.

 

[M4t3us]

Okay, going on the NHL and Fifa games, by EA, the new editions are extremely different to the 2010 version. The physics engines for both games were completely overhauled.This makes the games so different from a gameplay standpoint that most sequels to "conventional" games can't compete.

Considering that they update the games with new rosters online anyway, so it isn't just a roster update.

I'd say the difference between Fifa 2003 and 2011 is bigger than the difference between Halo 1 and Halo Reach

And my point with the DRM thing is that there is no DRM on consoles, so that's a non-issue. And since you can't buy PC games used anyway it makes literally no point in the discussion.

If by completely overhauled you mean changes on how the players are given supernatural powers (especially the goalies) that not only unbalance the general gameplay but are very open to exploits, then I whole heartedly agree. Yes I have played the games, mostly because I had to, our regular sports game reviewer was laid off due to personnel cuts and I had to take over that ship for a bit, not just NHL and Fifa, mind you, NBA and Madden too.

I didn't know they updated it online, but I do know that that is one of the only noticeable changes from one to the other.

While there is a great level of difference between the 2003 and 2011 versions, most of that is due to increasing higher end gaming systems being available, or am missing something here? Btw, "hyperbolizing" my statements isn't doing your credibility any good. Oh and while we're at it, very poor analysis of me, using Halo, that is possibly the kind of game I despise the most, while at the same time respecting the revenue it generates from frat boys.

There is no DRM on consoles? Not the draconian kind you see on PC sure, but it is getting there, after all:

And yes, you can still buy used PC games, mostly older titles, true, but you can also find recent ones from companies that have realised that DRM harms the paying customer more than the pirate.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

There is no DRM on consoles?

Of course there is. Always was. Just that with consoles the DRM has mostly hardware/firmware based in the console itself rather than software based as it is with PCs.

 

[M4t3us]

There is no DRM on consoles?

Of course there is. Always was. Just that with consoles the DRM has mostly hardware/firmware based in the console itself rather than software based as it is with PCs.

Thank you! I guess I'm not the only one who sees that after all...

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

There is no DRM on consoles? Not the draconian kind you see on PC sure, but it is getting there, after all:

And yes, you can still buy used PC games, mostly older titles, true, but you can also find recent ones from companies that have realised that DRM harms the paying customer more than the pirate.

QFT. Consoles are nothing if not a form of DRM, and I buy used PC games all the time -- of the last four used games I bought (my last major game purchase) three were PC games. They were all fairly old, but that doesn't mean you can't find games from the current generation -- for example, I've bought used PC versions of Oblivion, F.E.A.R., Battlefield 2 and KoTOR, and they all worked right out of the box, with no cracks required. While Gamestop doesn't carry used PC games, thrift shops and record stores are full of them, and Amazon and Ebay have a pretty good trade in them.

 

[M4t3us]

QFT. Consoles are nothing if not a form of DRM, and I buy used PC games all the time -- of the last four used games I bought (my last major game purchase) three were PC games. They were all fairly old, but that doesn't mean you can't find games from the current generation -- for example, I've bought used PC versions of Oblivion, F.E.A.R., Battlefield 2 and KoTOR, and they all worked right out of the box, with no cracks required. While Gamestop doesn't carry used PC games, thrift shops and record stores are full of them, and Amazon and Ebay have a pretty good trade in them.

It's this guy who doesn't seem to get it:

And my point with the DRM thing is that there is no DRM on consoles, so that's a non-issue. And since you can't buy PC games used anyway it makes literally no point in the discussion.

^.^

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

QFT. Consoles are nothing if not a form of DRM, and I buy used PC games all the time -- of the last four used games I bought (my last major game purchase) three were PC games. They were all fairly old, but that doesn't mean you can't find games from the current generation -- for example, I've bought used PC versions of Oblivion, F.E.A.R., Battlefield 2 and KoTOR, and they all worked right out of the box, with no cracks required. While Gamestop doesn't carry used PC games, thrift shops and record stores are full of them, and Amazon and Ebay have a pretty good trade in them.

It's this guy who doesn't seem to get it:

And my point with the DRM thing is that there is no DRM on consoles, so that's a non-issue. And since you can't buy PC games used anyway it makes literally no point in the discussion.

^.^

Well, he's the one who needs to hear it, but I quoted with you to agree with you, not to argue with him. I haven't quoted the wrong person in a long time

 

[M4t3us]

Well, he's the one who needs to hear it, but I quoted with you to agree with you, not to argue with him. I haven't quoted the wrong person in a long time

Truth be told that post was more of a way to merge someone else's opinion on the matter and get him a little PM notification in the process. Cherry on top an' all that! ^.^

 

[-Samurai-]

They absolutely could, but they shouldn't and don't have to.

Which is why I found your original post very good to stand on its own. I just had to comment because someone actually thought it needed an extra hand. ^.^

I guess I misread tone(and somehow missed the emotes :/).

Whoops.