Was I just not paying attention, or has their been a noticable lack of outrage over EA's online pass implementation? I'm surprised PA hasn't done any comics on the matter, or if they did I have missed it.
I find the whole situation disgusting as it reeks of base greed. The ridiculous thing is that EA has made statements to the effect of it being a means to defer costs of online bandwidth. Which would either lead one to believe that either they would offer a discounted original purchase without online play, or that the original purchase price deferred those costs. But since when the game is sold second hand the original user can no longer use any bandwidth, I don't see why a need for additional charges.
If anything the second player's illusionary additional bandwidth costs are deferred in whole by second purchases of DLC already bought by the original owner, which serves to give them double the digital income, and should also been seen as their piece of the used/rental game pie. If someone wants to play the game online, chances are they will purchase the additional map packs or other related DLC, since they are already doing so, so why the added cost of the online pass.
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.
I know this issue has been around for a bit and I'm curious if people have already, like again rising gas prices, become so used to getting fleeced in this manner that they have becom inured to it. Even with the full knowledge that other game companies will very likely eventually also follow this flawed and greedy template, due to thier desire to also increase their profits through whatever means necessary.
(I tried to search for topics on this matter, but that function does not seem to be working, so I apologize if there is already threads on this issue, which I assume there are.)
I'm Frank T.J. Mackey, a master of the muffin... - from Magnolia
Posts
Was this a quote to exemplify EA's stance, or something they actually said on the matter? If so as I already stated, EA gets double the digital purchases, from someone that very likely might not have purchased the game and thus the additional DLC in the first place. So I guess I'm not sure what your point is, outside of the fact that probably isn't enough for them, because companies always want more and more money, usually from those that can least afford it.
Either way that does little to answer my question as to why there doesn't seem to be much of a public outcry on this obvious fleecing, other than simple laziness by video game consumers.
They also claim this combats piracy, as you NEED the online pass to go online. Though I'm not certain how effective it truly is.
Realistically, they DO get to decide who gets access to it. It's their servers afterall. While I don't agree with their nickel and dime practices (useless, lazy DLC), I make no illusions over multiplayer access. EA can yank the cord whenever they want since they're paying for the bandwidth.
As I stated before though, they do get a part of the second hand market via secondary DLC, a perfect example would though it is a different company, after I purchased Forza 3 used, I then proceeded to spend around $40 dollars on DLC for it, which went straight to the publisher/developer. Also, they make more than enough profit to easily sustain their servers, and no other company seems to need to resort to this template. I don't see any reason why consumers should take this issue lying down, as it seems most have. Well other than, as I said before, pure laziness and apathy, which is probably the most likely cause. But as an extension of that argument, I'm curious why sites such as PA who does usually voice a strong opinion on such matters, seems to be relatively silent.
Personally I buy very little used games, but though this issue doesn't greatly effect me directly, I have a strong aversion to these kinds of business practices.
There hasn't been a huge outcry because it isn't really outrageous. Publishers believe that the used games market hurts their bottom line, which is plausible, and they're reacting to it. It also functions secondarily as an anti-piracy measure, though its efficacy isn't clear.
EA wants to incentivize buying new and take what they can get from buyers of used games. They're well within their rights in doing this. Consumers will demonstrate their approval or disapproval by choosing to buy or not buy. Ultenth, it's clear that you don't like the policy, and it's also clear that you're far from alone in the matter. The way to express your discontent, if you want to be heard, is to boycott. But don't get your hopes up. I have a feeling that the people who are agnostic on the issue vastly outnumber those who are angry.
This right here. If you don't like it, let them know by not buying it.
The comparison you made to rising gas prices is not a good one, as many people have no choice or alternative to paying for expensive gas if they want to function in their day to day lives (for getting to work, picking up kids, business purposes and so on) whereas there are plenty of other games for you to buy if you choose to snub EA.
Sure, people buy used and EA gets fleeced from them, and people could potentially buy DLC, but let me be frank here: There's a very real possibility that the kind of people that buy used simply won't buy DLC, as they've already shown hesitance to even pay the MSRP for the product in question.
I think it's a smart business practice that's not hurting anyone other than those trying to save $5 here and there anyways, and I applaud EA for it. After all, those people are GameStop's customers, not EA, so what does EA owe them? (Hint: the answer is nothing.)
However
What I don't like about this, and we've yet to see how this plays out, but EA is notorious for closing online servers to older games. That's all fine and dandy, but I really, really can't condone them shutting down servers on games that have been affected by the Online Pass. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
I think arguably EA is fucking their own customers by doing something that will kill the resale value of the games they buy new.
I pick Gamestop
As long as the money keeps coming in, we're going to continually get screwed. I've pretty much accepted 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.
Steam
XBOX
Pretty much every EA online game from now on
All last year's sports games (meaning the 2011 titles), Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit, Mass Effect 2 had a form of it (Cerberus Network), and I believe Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and Medal of Honor
I'm not sure there is a sharp distinction between the two. I manage at a GameStop and we are whores for EA. From February until July/August we are supposed to drive the hell out of Madden/NCAA pre-orders. We're probably EA's best idea of how well they are going to do on new sales. GameStop's customers are often EA's customers. How many used games do you think we sell on new release Tuesdays? Not very many (except in my store where there are special rednecks who try to haggle me on $1.50 PS2 games). You've got to remember that this retailer is not an enemy of publishers like they seem to claim, but a staunch ally. I mean look at how well GameStop helped the dumb kinect do. Think of how much exaggeration employees do because they are given vague information or even near-lies from the publishers bullet-point sheets, etc and thus gain sales.
These retail employees are some of the biggest footsoldiers in the marketing war for these games and new tech. EA and big publishers don't view GameStop as a nuisance or problem, they're just doing this now to push their greed a little further.
And to make my soul dry out a little bit more, I think.
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
Something to take from all of these conversations is that pricing structure in the gaming industry has a lot of potential for change, especially with digital distribution potentially gaining dominance in the long term.
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"
Your average Madden/Fifa buyer doesn't take a second glance at the box after picking it up and probably wouldn't know this thing existed.
This seems to be more the issue than anything. Yes companies can do anything legal in the name of profit, which this falls under. But that doesn't mean consumers will accept it. Unfortunately large companies spend countless millions of dollars on publicity, advertising and legal teams in order to convince consumers that they aren't getting fleecing, and they would not do this if it did not work. It is the job of opinion and news sites to try to counter this disinformation, and by and large it seems the response has been fairly lackluster on this issue.
Yes it's smart business by EA to implement this, and I don't think anyone has disputed that. But it is not smart for consumers to simply bend over and accept it, if anything for the precident it sets. But most likely people are too busy playing Call of Duty to bother to care, which really is the ultimate problem in regards to attempting to take stands on gaming issues.
I can see a slipperly slope quite easily and that one day there will be different membership types for each online game, and unless you buy the "gold online pass" you won't be able to get as good of a ping when playing online games, or something similar.
Also, my point about gas prices was to illustrate people's vast ability to become inured to being taken advantage of, and the cycle of consumer abuse and rights violations it creates.
Well said. The distinction between profit-making and "greed" is highly subjective, and the line between them always seems to lie across whatever the individual's hot button is.
Yes, EA is trying to make money by doing this. What did you think they were doing before? Did you think they were selling you new games "at cost" and then all of a sudden they got "greedy" and decided to start charging for resale online passes?
EA is a business. They are not a fucking non-profit humanitarian organization. It is their goal to make as much money as possible just like any other business. In an ideal world they will attempt to do this by providing goods and services that consumers want. If consumers feel that they are being treated unfairly, than they can take their money elsewhere, EA's profits will suffer, and the market will correct itself.
Ultenth, you should probably turn down the hyperbole. There are good points to be made without resorting to "They're VIOLATING my RIGHTS."
Part of the whole issue that I am trying to put forth is that consumers have just as much of a right (and in many ways duty) to protect their dollar as a company has to try to take it. It is a concept that seems to be lost on many people today, and if what you call hyperbole is what it takes to get people to realize it, then it is what it is.
Yes EA is a company, it is supposed to make money, but does that mean that as a consumer we just have to hand it over? Yes ultimately a consumer can take his money elsewhere, but that is like telling someone who has an issue with the country they live in that they have no right to try to change what they disagree with about that country, and that if they don't like it they should just move. As consumers who provide profits to companies, it is within our rights (again in many ways I see it as a duty) to question how those companies go about achieveing those profits, and through the same mechanism they use (opinion, news, IE advertising and publicity) to try to get said company to back down from practices that consumers view as predatory.
You don't have to just take it, and your only option is NOT simply to boycott a company. Sites like PA which are opinion shifters often see themselves in the role of consumer advocacy, and it is my opinion that this specific subject is one which could use a greater voice. If anything for the precedent it sets. Consumer advocacy is not just about boycotting, unfortunately though it seems many video game purchasers cannot be bother to pursue it, which is why many internet news and opinion sites/blogs exist in the first place.
Yeah, your hyperbole is eye-rollingly obtuse. Telling someone to buy another video game is not like telling them to leave to leave the country if they disagree with policies.
You do have the ability to tell the game company what you think by not purchasing their games and/or contacting them directly.
I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, but I'm also under no illusion that anyone in the gaming industry "owes" me anything. If they want to lock game copies to unique keys, I'll stop playing video games until the price drops to under $10. They lose the revenue and I can spend my money on other things.
I'm not having my rights violated if that occurs.
It is called the Online Pass because it locks all multiplayer content.
If you don't see it as a right that is your perogative. I do see it as such though, as I have a right to protect my dollar from what I see as unnecessary and exorbant costs. I think you are assuming that I am referring to "rights" as something akin to my constitutional or legal rights, which I am not, I am referring to my much more subjective rights that I see myself having as a human being and as a consumer.
Boycotting is not a first reaction, it is a last resort. Especially in this online age, consumers have a multitude of resources to attempt to utilize before resorting to a boycott. Attempting to sway public opinion about something in a way that the PR hit is more costly than money gained is one such method. Something I am attempting to use at this very moment, and something I wish that PA would use it's voice for as well. They are under no obligation to do so, but I am simply stating that I wish that they would, as their voice is much louder than my own in the public eye.
Bottom line: companies like EA understand one language, as simplistic as it may sound.
$$$$$
They don't have some altruistic pledge to first do no harm. They spend millions of dollars making an entertainment product, and the only reason that happens is because they want that cash back plus a shitload more. Used products take away a percentage of their dime, hence online passes.
Is this different in principle from Shale in Dragon Age, or the strip club in The Saboteur? Both of them were DLC content that came with new copies.
Which annoys me because I'm an avid Gamefly user... Since I don't have a job and no way to pay $60 for a 4 hour game.
If you don't like a companies practices, then don't buy from that company. That's the only recourse you, as an individual, have. It's been proven time and time again that gamers are weak willed and simply can't unify against "corporate greed". Unofficial boycotts have all failed as soon as a game has released.
If you want to start a video game consumer advocacy group, then do that. The industry definitely needs one.
You're on the right road in the sense that consumers should respond negatively if the practice of a company affects them negatively. But understand that if you want to rattle EA's cage, your actions must ultimately affect their bottom line. Since a personal boycott won't do anything, join or start a collective boycott. Get it out in the open. It's about numbers. If you can translate discontent into a potential or actual detriment to sales, then they will listen. The idea is to make the undesirable action more costly than the alternative.
You're definitely correct in saying that gamers are probably largely apathetic. The market is inherently democratic so you run into the problem of collective action. I don't think the online pass is offensive enough to most gamers to provoke a vocal movement, so if you really think it's that big a deal you need to seek out those who agree with you and think about what you can do to affect EA's bottom line.
What it comes down to is how much you care about this, and how much gamers as a collective care about it. If someone can cull enough collective discontent and exert pressure on the company in ways that matter to them, then it is possible to talk EA out of the online pass. But that discontent has to exist and be abundant enough to be visible...and I highly doubt it's sufficient.
Just please, please, please don't pretend that you have an ethical mandate or that EA games is in any sense doing anything wrong, because you don't and they aren't.
Money lost is not simply one person not buying an item. Large companies like EA spend millions on their corperate image, if something they are doing is damaging to that image, they weigh the costs vs. gains and choose to continue or to stop what they are doing. I have not asked if people know why EA is doing this, it's quite obvious. I have not asked why people as individuals are not doing anything about it, it's quite obvious. I am curious though as to why resources usually used for consumer advocacy in the gaming community are in my opinion being underutilized in regards to this issue. But at this point it seems to be the only response I am going to receive here is on the subject of the two issues stated earlier that are already quite obvious.
Simple, if the company practices don't fly, then don't buy. At first I didn't want Assassin's Creed 2, now with DRM toned back I want it.
You mentioned PA specifically earlier on the subject so I'll go ahead and address this portion of your argument. Many around here are simply unsympathetic to the used market. If you buy Mass Effect 2 used then you are a customer of GameStop, not EA. This community in particular is more concerned with the health of game developers than many others. If a company's actions are truly harmful to their paying customers (see Ubisoft's "always connected" DRM) then folks tend to get riled up about it. If it hurts the used market? Not so much.
The folks behind the PA comics have dipped their toes into game development. I would imagine their feelings on the subject would be mixed at best.
And you can't go around talking about how the sale of a used game will be covered by DLC that the second hand user purchases. Not everyone who buys games used will buy DLC, and not all games have DLC (though I suppose since EA is the topic of this discussion, we can assume that all affected games will probably have DLC).
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.
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
Twitter
Besides the added income from the DLC, there are other reasons as to why used games can contribute to company income. I feel safe in assuming that I am not the only person ever to buy a used version of a game several years old, feel happy with the purchase, and then proceed to buy new the latest iteration of said game. Had I not impulse bought the older cheap used version of the game, I probably would not have spent money on the latest version. Sometimes companies will need to learn that just because someone spent less money somewhere else to buy something used, doesn't mean they LOST money, because they probably wouldn't have spent the money buying the more expensive un-used product. Buying used games is NOT the same as piracy, which EA almost views it as.
This is correct but it's only half the picture. The idea is that you have to attack their image in such a way that they believe it will affect their sales. The initial rumblings following the announcement of the online pass were clearly not sufficient. So you have to speak louder and correlate that voice with a dip in sales. In this case, it would be ideal to target a single high-profile release and provide a petition with x signatures. If the petitioners follow through and their numbers are strong enough, the company will see a shortfall in sales of about x. The larger the number, the more clear it will be that the shortfall isn't a coincidence.
If it's a contentious enough issue, a boycott absolutely isn't necessary because there will be a strong enough chorus to let the company know its customers disapprove. But again, we're back to the problem with this specific issue: as far as we know, gamers tend not to care.