As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
We're funding a new Acquisitions Incorporated series on Kickstarter right now! Check it out at https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pennyarcade/acquisitions-incorporated-the-series-2

EA Online Pass

2456

Posts

  • Ragnar DragonfyreRagnar Dragonfyre Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    i never buy used anyway, and i hate gamestop with a passion, so in general i don't have a problem with this. seems to me it's like the cerberus network card. just incentive to buy the game new.

    and honestly, when gamestop charges 55 for a used game and the new one's 60, i'd rather all my money go to the publisher than to gamestop.

    This.

    I like buying new because my money goes to the developers to keep making awesome games, or continue the franchise.

    Typically, if I buy used it's because I don't want the developer to have my money, or don't believe the game is worth the full price (which amounts to the same thing anyway). That's how I flex my consumer rights.

    Ragnar Dragonfyre on
    steam_sig.png
  • Ratsult2Ratsult2 Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Resale value is nigh worthless unless you're trading it in very close to release, at which point you may be lucky to get $25 back. I really doubt the Online Pass is affecting what GameStop is giving for it.

    Taking back Madden 10 to help pay for Madden 11 is going to get you like $5 anyways, even before this plan was introduced.

    I'd never sell something back to gamestop, I do use goozex and ebay quite frequently though, where your rate of return can be much higher..well, not anymore if you're selling/trading an EA game

    I suppose?

    But this went into practice on Madden 11, guess we'll have to wait for Madden 12's numbers and see how adversely this has affected their sales

    I'm guessing "not very much at all, most people probably don't give a shit"

    For the record Madden 10 had the EA pass, and you couldn't play the new (and popular) online mode without it.

    Ratsult2 on
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    i never buy used anyway, and i hate gamestop with a passion, so in general i don't have a problem with this. seems to me it's like the cerberus network card. just incentive to buy the game new.

    and honestly, when gamestop charges 55 for a used game and the new one's 60, i'd rather all my money go to the publisher than to gamestop.

    This.

    I like buying new because my money goes to the developers to keep making awesome games, or continue the franchise.

    Typically, if I buy used it's because I don't want the developer to have my money, or don't believe the game is worth the full price (which amounts to the same thing anyway). That's how I flex my consumer rights.

    If I can't buy a game for 60 dollars right away, I'll still ultimately purchase it later new, on Amazon, with free shipping at whatever reduced price they have, rather than buy it used. I recently did this with Super Scribblenauts for 19.99. It's sitting here collecting dust while I do homework and finish Ghost Trick, but I will get to it.

    I may have to choose between De Blob 2 and Radiant Historia in the same way soon...

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • ZiggymonZiggymon Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    I do like EA's system of exclusive DLC for PS3 titles like Dead Space 2 and Medal of Honor, offering free access to Dead Space Extraction and MOH: Frontlines for free as long as you have the game disc. Its a good way of preventing a resell by the consumer.

    Ziggymon on
  • UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    The whole EA Account thing is tiny bit more insidious with PC games.

    I live in a country with some of the highest game prices. Typically, I'll buy my games from Steam when they've come down in price and gone on sale, and usually that is fine by me.

    However, I've also been known to purchase retail games from certain regions where they cost a fraction of what new retail games do in other places (just bought Dead Space 2 PC for $25, since I'm not going to support the jump to $60, especially if the version PC gamers get is missing features). Now, you can't do this with most Valve games - Steam will just tell you to fuck off and buy it in your region. But games from many other publishers aren't regionally coded, just regionally priced.

    With the advent of the EA Account, I've had to be a bit more careful about doing this, because EA does occasionally deactivate CD keys or multiplayer accounts (not consistently - it doesn't seem to be a policy they enforce enthusiastically), citing suspected fraud (though their definition of fraud seems a bit twisted when it amounts to buying a game from a different region than your own).

    Anyways, it's all a shit sandwich. If you enjoy this hobby, you do what you have to do to get by. Like I said, at this point I mostly just focus on Steam sales and indie games, and save myself from quite a bit of faux-outrage when bigger games get fucked over with anti-consumeristic crap.

    Ultimanecat on
    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
  • NickleNickle Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    I guess they want to make money from people who buy used, but it's not really like EA is getting "screwed." I mean, if the game is used, that means someone already paid for it, right? I would wager that most people who are looking to buy used weren't planning on buying a new copy anyway, so it's not like they really lose a ton of sales.

    I can understand that companies want to make money, and this is probably a halfway decent way to go about it, but lets not act like resellers are screwing publishers over. EA wants to persuade consumers to buy new instead of used, and to make some extra money from any eventual used sales, plain and simple.

    It'll be interesting to see how it all works out, really. In my opinion, I'd much prefer more of an incentive than the online pass, i.e. stuff like ME2's cerberus network, etc. Where you get something for buying a game new, instead of taking something away. Really in the end it's the same thing, but I guess it's just the way it's presented that might piss some people off.

    Nickle on
    Xbox/PSN/NNID/Steam: NickleDL | 3DS: 0731-4750-6906
  • noir_bloodnoir_blood Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Yea, the online pass thing bugs me a bit, and its not only EA doing it. THQ is also doing the same thing with their wrestling/UFC games.

    I really would have thought there would be more outrage about this thing, especially on the xbox 360 side. What exactly am I getting out of live if I have to pay to access multiplayer in games anyways? That more than anything has made me consider getting a PS3. The things I use it for-Netflix, multiplayer games, would be free anyways.

    noir_blood on
  • AstaleAstale Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    EA likes to piss me off thiiiiiiiiiis much.

    Gamestop likes to piss me off thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis much. Plus they are staffed by a bunch of assholes 90% of the time.




    Also I am fucking addicted to Steam. Gabe Newell got fat eating my soul.

    Astale on
  • T-boltT-bolt Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    If this trend happened back when EB and the like actually had good discounts for buying used (and back when I was a poor student) I definitely would have minded. Now, I'd rather buy new (so the developers get a cut) unless I can find a used copy for at least half off, so I don't care that much.

    T-bolt on
  • Angel177Angel177 Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Simple, one reason and one reason alone, EA has decided to break a model that seems to work for every other game company who can support their online multiplayer just fine, as a means to increase their profits from the 3.654 Billion GAAP revenue they made last year. In other words, a simple and base example of corporate greed.

    Gamestop made 3.02 billion in one QUARTER mostly out of used sales, I'm sorry you think its greed but at the end of the dayproject 10 dollar makes sense.

    I buy my games new, I support the publisher over buying used.

    Only a few games interest me in regards to Multi and if I'm just gonna enjoy the single player then I might buy used, It's all about reserching what you want from a game.

    Angel177 on
    6103544412_a48002080a.jpg
  • AstaleAstale Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    It's disgusting such a shitty company as Gamestop makes that much money, period.

    Astale on
  • Angel177Angel177 Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    oh heres the link

    Angel177 on
    6103544412_a48002080a.jpg
  • adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited February 2011
    I think it's hilarious that these discussions (every single one I've read on PA, that is) trend towards Gamestop being the be-all and end-all of the used game market.

    I primarily play second hand PS3 games, and I have never in my life set foot in a Gamestop.

    Also, I just bought (preordered, actually- something I never do) a $60 sequel that I will not resell. Why? Because I played the original as a second hand game (and paid $1 to do so), and loved it so much that I went out and bought a retail copy of that game, too!

    There is a whole lot more going on out there than people buying used games for $55 at Gamestop.

    adytum on
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Angel177 wrote: »
    Simple, one reason and one reason alone, EA has decided to break a model that seems to work for every other game company who can support their online multiplayer just fine, as a means to increase their profits from the 3.654 Billion GAAP revenue they made last year. In other words, a simple and base example of corporate greed.

    Gamestop made 3.02 billion in one QUARTER mostly out of used sales, I'm sorry you think its greed but at the end of the dayproject 10 dollar makes sense.

    I buy my games new, I support the publisher over buying used.

    Only a few games interest me in regards to Multi and if I'm just gonna enjoy the single player then I might buy used, It's all about reserching what you want from a game.

    It doesn't make sense, not really. It's a reactionary measure to try and control the product after purchase. If they really wanted to give the buyer a reason to keep their game, release some awesome DLC later on. Either way, whether the consumer bought the game new or used, that publisher will get some bonus cash from the sale. There's also a lot of talk about used games cannibalizing new sales, which in a lot of ways is like the industry's obsession with comparing piracy 1:1 with lost sales, and it's not true.

    Also, I'm just going to throw out there that the vast majority of most games' sales are done in the first week on the market (and most of that in the first 48 hours). This has been the way the industry has run for fifteen years. Eventually new sales slow to a crawl, and the used market takes over, but back fifteen years ago when Gamestop was just starting to take trade-ins (with a third party raping them with that system), there was little used market.

    I'll also throw out there that the used market partially drives new release sales. A lot of people use trade-ins to buy new titles, particularly on release date. If you think this doesn't increase new release numbers, you're nuts.

    Shadowfire on
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • Lionel-RichieLionel-Richie Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Shadowfire wrote: »

    I'll also throw out there that the used market partially drives new release sales. A lot of people use trade-ins to buy new titles, particularly on release date. If you think this doesn't increase new release numbers, you're nuts.

    Preeeetty much. EA doesn't actually believe in their project $10, so people shouldn't act righteous about it. It's just nickel and diming, plain and simple.

    Lionel-Richie on
  • PolloDiabloPolloDiablo Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Basically the only thing that these kinds of issues accomplish is exposing the deeply fucked up pricing structure in the video game industry.

    PolloDiablo on
  • SmokeStacksSmokeStacks Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Basically the only thing that these kinds of issues accomplish is exposing the deeply fucked up pricing structure in the video game industry.

    I'd be pretty happy if the game was ten bucks cheaper at retail and didn't include an online pass at all. Meaning, instead of paying $60 for a new game's singleplayer and multiplayer portion I could just pay $50 for the singleplayer alone on release day and then an extra $10 for the multi another time if I wanted.

    SmokeStacks on
  • AstaleAstale Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    I'd like it if the game was ten bux and came with a free pony while we're making wishes.

    I mean, it's not that I wouldn't like that too, but that's some weird logic you're using.


    Edit: In that you want to say "I don't like this part of the game, remove it and lower the price". I mean, hell, if that was an option I'd be like "get rid of the first 11 hours of FFXIII and lower the price 20$ please".

    Astale on
  • UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Astale wrote: »
    I'd like it if the game was ten bux and came with a free pony while we're making wishes.

    I mean, it's not that I wouldn't like that too, but that's some weird logic you're using.


    Edit: In that you want to say "I don't like this part of the game, remove it and lower the price". I mean, hell, if that was an option I'd be like "get rid of the first 11 hours of FFXIII and lower the price 20$ please".

    I think you missed the part where EA and other publishers are charging $10 for the multiplayer.

    His point is that if you're going to monetize disparate parts of your game, then you should give people the option to save money and not buy those parts if they don't want them.

    Although, to be fair, you could realistically save a bit of money if you're not interested in multiplayer by selling your key on Ebay or Craigslist for $9 or something.

    Ultimanecat on
    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
  • Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    i only have a few issues with the online pass system, and it's not that i don't want to support the developers, because i do.
    firstly, rentals of video games often times help me determine if i want a game. the idea is that if i rent an EA game in the future, i'll likely have to drop another $10 just to try the online, when i'm already paying just to try the game anyways.

    secondly, and more of a personal note, games are fucking expensive. it's never been a cheap hobby. but for someone like me, i sometimes really really want a game and also don't have enough cash. if i can save a few bucks buying used, you bet your ass i'm going to save that money. fuck, i waited a year for batman to hit $20 because i'm cheap.

    which also leads to my last point, in that when i buy the game, it becomes mine. i should be able to resell it, the way i bought it. but thanks to this system, the value of my game is decreased in the eyes of people i sell to (and i'm not selling to gamestop, that's for sure). this is akin to buying a new car, but the radio has a one time use code. if i try to sell the car, whoops that dude has to buy a new radio code! see where i'm going with this?

    i understand the idea behind the online pass, i just find it completely designed to fuck the customer

    Local H Jay on
    Xbox - Local H Jay
    PS - Local_H_Jay
    Sub me on Youtube
    And Twitch
  • UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Edit: Sorry, double posted.

    Ultimanecat on
    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
  • TurkeyTurkey So, Usoop. TampaRegistered User regular
    edited February 2011
    i only have a few issues with the online pass system, and it's not that i don't want to support the developers, because i do.
    firstly, rentals of video games often times help me determine if i want a game. the idea is that if i rent an EA game in the future, i'll likely have to drop another $10 just to try the online, when i'm already paying just to try the game anyways.

    secondly, and more of a personal note, games are fucking expensive. it's never been a cheap hobby. but for someone like me, i sometimes really really want a game and also don't have enough cash. if i can save a few bucks buying used, you bet your ass i'm going to save that money. fuck, i waited a year for batman to hit $20 because i'm cheap.

    which also leads to my last point, in that when i buy the game, it becomes mine. i should be able to resell it, the way i bought it. but thanks to this system, the value of my game is decreased in the eyes of people i sell to (and i'm not selling to gamestop, that's for sure). this is akin to buying a new car, but the radio has a one time use code. if i try to sell the car, whoops that dude has to buy a new radio code! see where i'm going with this?

    i understand the idea behind the online pass, i just find it completely designed to fuck the customer

    I'm not sure where that myth comes from, but you can play most, if not all of the EA games online on a rental. They either lock some modes out, don't include free DLC, or have a trial period.

    Also, you're not really their customer if you're not giving them a penny.

    Turkey on
  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    i only have a few issues with the online pass system, and it's not that i don't want to support the developers, because i do.
    firstly, rentals of video games often times help me determine if i want a game. the idea is that if i rent an EA game in the future, i'll likely have to drop another $10 just to try the online, when i'm already paying just to try the game anyways.

    secondly, and more of a personal note, games are fucking expensive. it's never been a cheap hobby. but for someone like me, i sometimes really really want a game and also don't have enough cash. if i can save a few bucks buying used, you bet your ass i'm going to save that money. fuck, i waited a year for batman to hit $20 because i'm cheap.

    which also leads to my last point, in that when i buy the game, it becomes mine. i should be able to resell it, the way i bought it. but thanks to this system, the value of my game is decreased in the eyes of people i sell to (and i'm not selling to gamestop, that's for sure). this is akin to buying a new car, but the radio has a one time use code. if i try to sell the car, whoops that dude has to buy a new radio code! see where i'm going with this?

    i understand the idea behind the online pass, i just find it completely designed to fuck the customer

    You're right, the game is yours.

    But the servers that host the ability to use the online content (multiplayer and all that) aren't.

    Which is a major part of the reasoning for the whole online pass thing. If you buy a game new, the people who pay for/run/maintain(delete as applicable) the servers get money to keep doing that. You buy used and they don't and in effect you're using the servers they are paying for, for free.

    You're arguing that the customer is getting fucked over here but this works both ways. There is no incentive at all to let someone buy a game used (which the game developers don't see any money from) and then let then let them play online when they have in effect contributed nothing to the running costs.

    Karl on
  • Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    someone paid for the game at some point right? despite what you may think a person buying a product second hand or renting would like full access the the advertised features. you don't buy a secondhand DVD and then have to pay extra for the bonus features, because it's asinine.
    the trial mode is a seven day pass, and for anyone who uses gamefly that is probably not much time to play (and in most cases the single player comes first anyways, meaning time wasted right there). and what about when i lend the game to a friend for more than a week, and whoops oh yeah gotta pay to play my man.
    we can argue semantics back and forth, but really this just a way to ensure EA makes a quick buck every time one of their games changes hands. they have no real good reason to lock us out of the content other than to hurt those of us clearly trying to save money.

    Local H Jay on
    Xbox - Local H Jay
    PS - Local_H_Jay
    Sub me on Youtube
    And Twitch
  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    someone paid for the game at some point right? despite what you may think a person buying a product second hand or renting would like full access the the advertised features. you don't buy a secondhand DVD and then have to pay extra for the bonus features, because it's asinine..

    A DVD has extra features loaded on the disk and there is no running cost to keep them available.

    Karl on
  • Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Karl wrote: »

    You're right, the game is yours.

    But the servers that host the ability to use the online content (multiplayer and all that) aren't.

    Which is a major part of the reasoning for the whole online pass thing. If you buy a game new, the people who pay for/run/maintain(delete as applicable) the servers get money to keep doing that. You buy used and they don't and in effect you're using the servers they are paying for, for free.

    You're arguing that the customer is getting fucked over here but this works both ways. There is no incentive at all to let someone buy a game used (which the game developers don't see any money from) and then let then let them play online when they have in effect contributed nothing to the running costs.

    i would have a lot more sympathy for this thing if it were anyone other than EA, who are notorious for pulling server support for games on whimsy. they also seem to give two shits about me even though if i do really enjoy the game, and i can support it even with a used copy. not just with DLC, but maybe even considering buying the next game in the series new (i bought dead space 1 used to see if i liked it. i did, and bought DS2 new. woahhh what a concept)
    the person who bought it new contributed to the costs. he sold it to me, making money back. where in there, does EA deserve any of my money?
    when i buy the game, whether new or not, i should not be punished for wanting to play the same as other people. they really don't lose so much money when i buy used, in the grand scheme of things. plus, with all the ads in game now, i bet they make plenty of money with me just being there, staring at the billboards of real life products.

    Local H Jay on
    Xbox - Local H Jay
    PS - Local_H_Jay
    Sub me on Youtube
    And Twitch
  • Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Karl wrote: »
    someone paid for the game at some point right? despite what you may think a person buying a product second hand or renting would like full access the the advertised features. you don't buy a secondhand DVD and then have to pay extra for the bonus features, because it's asinine..

    A DVD has extra features loaded on the disk and there is no running cost to keep them available.

    again, semantics. on new blurays, they have online enabled features. should second hand bluray buyers be locked out of that content? i don't really think this is a practice we should be defending, second hand game purchasing is well within my rights and i don't think it's fair to be forced to pay more on top of whatever i paid.
    i know EA is within their rights to do the pass system, and i'm within mine to think it's a shitty fucking move

    Local H Jay on
    Xbox - Local H Jay
    PS - Local_H_Jay
    Sub me on Youtube
    And Twitch
  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Karl wrote: »

    You're right, the game is yours.

    But the servers that host the ability to use the online content (multiplayer and all that) aren't.

    Which is a major part of the reasoning for the whole online pass thing. If you buy a game new, the people who pay for/run/maintain(delete as applicable) the servers get money to keep doing that. You buy used and they don't and in effect you're using the servers they are paying for, for free.

    You're arguing that the customer is getting fucked over here but this works both ways. There is no incentive at all to let someone buy a game used (which the game developers don't see any money from) and then let then let them play online when they have in effect contributed nothing to the running costs.

    i would have a lot more sympathy for this thing if it were anyone other than EA, who are notorious for pulling server support for games on whimsy. they also seem to give two shits about me even though if i do really enjoy the game, and i can support it even with a used copy. not just with DLC, but maybe even considering buying the next game in the series new (i bought dead space 1 used to see if i liked it. i did, and bought DS2 new. woahhh what a concept)
    the person who bought it new contributed to the costs. he sold it to me, making money back. where in there, does EA deserve any of my money?
    when i buy the game, whether new or not, i should not be punished for wanting to play the same as other people. they really don't lose so much money when i buy used, in the grand scheme of things. plus, with all the ads in game now, i bet they make plenty of money with me just being there, staring at the billboards of real life products.


    The bottom line is that though yes, you've paid for that game you haven't paid the actual company that made it.

    So their response is basically, "fuck the 2nd buyers. We spent x amount of time/money/effort on this product and instead of paying us, they just waited till they could buy it cheaper off someone else". Don't get me wrong, its completely well within your rights to do this. But all EA are seeing is someone wanting to use their services (which have a constant running cost) who has at no point given them money.

    To be fair, i do have reservations about the EA online pass thing.Its a gate way to us being fucked in the ass if its not kept in check.

    Karl on
  • Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    i understand that none of my money directly went to EA, but somebody paid for that copy already so it's not like they are really losing money. i just don't feel like these companies are really worried about used game sales. DVDs, cars, hundreds of other products deal with competition from used merchandise. it's their job to make the new copy more appealing to me. if they feel like the way to do that is treat poor people (me) like shit, well, i might just buy a used copy of a game that has online, out of the box, like it should.
    i'm not trying to sound bitchy or entitled, i just want it to be made clear that really what buying used comes down to is saving money. and by charging for advertised content it hurts their product in the eyes of people like me who might now plunk down the full $60 at launch. but who knows, what if i bought every DLC pack because that game was so good? what if they actually made money off me in legitimate ways and not in such 'fuck you cheapskates, suck on this' fashion?
    we may never live in such a world

    Local H Jay on
    Xbox - Local H Jay
    PS - Local_H_Jay
    Sub me on Youtube
    And Twitch
  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    i understand that none of my money directly went to EA, but somebody paid for that copy already so it's not like they are really losing money. i just don't feel like these companies are really worried about used game sales. DVDs, cars, hundreds of other products deal with competition from used merchandise. it's their job to make the new copy more appealing to me. if they feel like the way to do that is treat poor people (me) like shit, well, i might just buy a used copy of a game that has online, out of the box, like it should.
    i'm not trying to sound bitchy or entitled, i just want it to be made clear that really what buying used comes down to is saving money. and by charging for advertised content it hurts their product in the eyes of people like me who might now plunk down the full $60 at launch. but who knows, what if i bought every DLC pack because that game was so good? what if they actually made money off me in legitimate ways and not in such 'fuck you cheapskates, suck on this' fashion?
    we may never live in such a world

    Yeah, someone has paid for that game. But that was a one time source of income. If there isn't a constant influx of people buying their games new or paying for the EA online pass then they're not going to cover costs.

    Karl on
  • UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Karl wrote: »
    Yeah, someone has paid for that game. But that was a one time source of income. If there isn't a constant influx of people buying their games new or paying for the EA online pass then they're not going to cover costs.

    Wait, what if instead of deciding to sell on my copy I keep it and keep playing my multiplayer? At what point am I obligated to send EA more money to sustain their currently unsustainable model?

    Ultimanecat on
    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
  • Ratsult2Ratsult2 Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    i understand that none of my money directly went to EA, but somebody paid for that copy already so it's not like they are really losing money.

    They are losing money though... you buying a used copy means you *didn't* buy a new copy. If there was no way to buy/sell used games that somebody would still have their copy, and you would have to buy one from EA. Sure, there is a chance that at that point you would just not buy the game at all, but even a few sales at that point is more money for EA than with a used copy sold.

    Ratsult2 on
  • Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    it's EA's choice to run those servers, XBL has plenty of options but they choose to run their games. i don't really care to hear about this kind of thing, because the last problem EA has is money. they are just looking for more ways to screw us. gamestop, the ones you would think would hate this idea, actually seem to love it
    "There have been some questions concerning first user only content and the effect on our used business," said GameStop CEO Dan DeMatteo. "We have not seen an impact thus far and as a matter of fact, we will turn this into a positive with our ability to sell DLC through our investments made in technology to market and sell this content in our stores."

    EA's Online Pass will give access to online modes in EA Sports titles only if gamers have a particular code. The code will come pre-packed with brand new copies of EA Sports titles and can be bought for US$ 10 by those who opt to buy second-hand copies.

    DeMatteo also characterized EA's first-user-only content scheme as another chance to educate consumers on DLC, something that the retail chain has focused increasingly on to establish themselves as major players in the DLC market. He further claimed that second hand game consumers are not "regular online players."
    http://www.qj.net/qjnet/news/gamestop-looking-forward-to-eas-online-pass.html

    they really aren't going to hurt gamestop with these practices, just would-be customers (and yes, second hand buyers ARE potential customers). i like many of EA's products and don't really want to deal with this system for every game they put out, but it seems like this is now the norm for them. it's underhanded in my eyes because if i could afford to buy every game new, i would. but not everyone is scrooge mcduck, and i don't really feel like getting the short end of the stick because i don't have the cash to throw down $60 multiple times a month.
    they really probably don't lose money, especially with gamestop tossing out moneyhats for the best preorder bonuses. no, they see this as a way to sell more DLC and make money at any possible turn. in fact, i'd say by cutting out the online play for used buyers they are just encouraging those people to resell it, since most games i keep around for the multiplayer, which is fun longer after the campaign is finished. people too stingy to shell out for the pass with simply sell the game again, robbing EA of... nothing, because they already made $60 on that game... and more on in-game ads... and even more on DLC

    Local H Jay on
    Xbox - Local H Jay
    PS - Local_H_Jay
    Sub me on Youtube
    And Twitch
  • SeanronSeanron GlasgowRegistered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Meh, it doesn't really bother me at all that EA have implemented this. I always buy new anyway.

    Seanron on
    PSN: Seanron - XBL: Seanron - Steam: Seanron
  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Karl wrote: »
    Yeah, someone has paid for that game. But that was a one time source of income. If there isn't a constant influx of people buying their games new or paying for the EA online pass then they're not going to cover costs.

    Wait, what if instead of deciding to sell on my copy I keep it and keep playing my multiplayer? At what point am I obligated to send EA more money to sustain their currently unsustainable model?

    I'd agree that their current model is unsustainable, because of exactly what you've said. You're not obligated to send them anymore money.

    So they're going to maximise the amount of money they can get.

    Karl on
  • Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Ratsult2 wrote: »
    i understand that none of my money directly went to EA, but somebody paid for that copy already so it's not like they are really losing money.

    They are losing money though... you buying a used copy means you *didn't* buy a new copy. If there was no way to buy/sell used games that somebody would still have their copy, and you would have to buy one from EA. Sure, there is a chance that at that point you would just not buy the game at all, but even a few sales at that point is more money for EA than with a used copy sold.

    i totally understand why they do it, i just think that reasoning is beyond silly. just like every other industry, they do have to deal with used products competing with theirs. as a customer, i'd rather there be good incentives to buy new, not the fear that i'll be charged later for wanting to save money.
    for the customer, it's lose-lose. buy new, and spend lots of money on the title. buy used, and save money but also pay more anyways, defeating the purpose. i'm simply unimpressed by the idea, it's lazy and treats customers like second class citizens. if the only way they can make money off second-hand buyers is to charge for those features they probably need to focus more on the content of the game itself.

    Local H Jay on
    Xbox - Local H Jay
    PS - Local_H_Jay
    Sub me on Youtube
    And Twitch
  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    You know that loads of games can be bought new at a reduced price if you just wait till its cheaper.

    So all these people complaining about not having the money to drop $60 on new games don't really have an argument.

    Karl on
  • Ratsult2Ratsult2 Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    they are just looking for more ways to screw us.

    EA is looking at ways to make money. EA online pass is a way for them to make more new game sales, with little to no cost to them. People who buy used games get the short end, but really, it's $10 extra for a used EA game, or potentially a cheaper price (used EA games will be cheaper from less demand) with some missing features.

    Why should EA care about people who are not their customers?

    Ratsult2 on
  • UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Karl wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    Yeah, someone has paid for that game. But that was a one time source of income. If there isn't a constant influx of people buying their games new or paying for the EA online pass then they're not going to cover costs.

    Wait, what if instead of deciding to sell on my copy I keep it and keep playing my multiplayer? At what point am I obligated to send EA more money to sustain their currently unsustainable model?

    I'd agree that their current model is unsustainable, because of exactly what you've said. You're not obligated to send them anymore money.

    So they're going to maximise the amount of money they can get.

    I'm fine with characterizing it as a money grab. That's what I think it is too. I just got the sense from your other posts that you thought EA deserves money to cover the costs from each person that uses their multiplayer, and not simply each copy that accesses it...

    ...because, you know, in neither of those cases do EA's costs increase due to a second-hand sale.

    Ultimanecat on
    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
  • Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Ratsult2 wrote: »
    they are just looking for more ways to screw us.

    EA is looking at ways to make money. EA online pass is a way for them to make more new game sales, with little to no cost to them. People who buy used games get the short end, but really, it's $10 extra for a used EA game, or potentially a cheaper price (used EA games will be cheaper from less demand) with some missing features.

    Why should EA care about people who are not customers?

    because those people, despite buying that game used, still have the capacity to become customers. DLC, future installments in the game, and other things like in-game ads (which they make good money from) are all ways in which they can make money of those buying second hand.
    sure, they might take a small loss, but there is still potential there for them to make money. the way i see it, they took the lazy route and decided to charge for features already in the game rather than try to make the game seem like a good value in the first place.

    Local H Jay on
    Xbox - Local H Jay
    PS - Local_H_Jay
    Sub me on Youtube
    And Twitch
Sign In or Register to comment.