However, even worse than that is having to enter a 25 digit code using a controller and Microsoft's just about good enough text interface. Fuck that.
I can't offer solutions for everything else, but the 360 takes a USB keyboard very nicely. Alternatively, enter a code on your PC via marketplace.xbox.com. I don't remember the last time I entered a code via the 360 pad.
Ok for the parts in RED, that is why its conjecture, you have NO proof that this is a good or bad thing.
To address the limed aspect, Are you a marketing specialist? Do you follow EA's marketing trends closely and understand advertising well enough to talk about it?
and you have achieved the yellow part you just don't like what your hearing.
He said wild conjecture, which I took umbrage to. He was trying to dismiss my arguement by essentially saying it had no grounds whatsover. It was an assumption, conjecture, educated guess, whatever you wish to call it, but so are most everyone's words that come out of their mouths.
Yes, I do work in marketing and logistics, in the film industry (previously in the fruit industry), and I have followed EA for years as I have had 3 friends that have worked for EA in various capacities over the last decade or more.
And no, I have not acheived my goal, because you and mrt144 have attempted to hijack my thread, so the only opinion I have been able to get recently is your two, and that is that you obviously don't think that this can or will ever become an issue, but I am hardly going to base everything off just your opinions.
Also, I have no problem with dissenting opinions, what I do have a problem with is people saying essentially that I don't have a right to an opinion on the matter and should shut up.
First off, I have not 'Hijacked your thread', I'm vocal about my opinions, and am being an active participant in the thread, this is how threads go, other questions are asked and speculated on but as long as a mod is allowing it to move forward, you should have no problem with it, otherwise if you want a specific question answered post in help and advice.
Threads are online conversations with many participents, and like conversation, they are protean, they evolve and jump around, promoting further disscussion, its a good topic for a thread let it breath.
And I've never told you to shut up, I have an issue with you presenting your ideas as FACT not opinion, if you wish to debate ideas, grow some hard skin, not everyone will agree with you, I have a degree in Graphic Design and Marketing and TRUST me, I've presented bad ideas and been torn down so fast it hurts, It sucks but I've also spun a layer of bullshit over a bad idea so well its seemed like a good one, present us with some solid, Well reserched facts with sources and you may be able to change my opinion but just now, all your doing is doomsaying and then chucking your dummy out of the pram.
I'm really not understanding this odd sense of entitlement from some people in here from people who buy games 2nd hand.
By not buying a game new, you're not actively supplying the people who run the servers with money.
So why should they give a fuck about you?
trying not to get really mad, but, why the fuck do they deserve my money? once they sold that game to someone else, it became THAT person's property. when i buy it from them, it becomes mine.
they got the initial money for THAT copy. for all intents and purposes, how do they even know that copy changed hands? i'm playing a perfectly good, paid for copy of the game. i'm not some dirty vagrant stealing the game off the shelf. i paid money, not as much, but i still paid!
it's like buying a car used. but suddenly i find out, to get that car, there's a fee from the manufacturer to actually drive it. WHY? wherein between that property changing hands, are devs entitled to my money?
they should give a fuck about us because, despite buying one game used, they could gain me as a loyal customer in the future.
i bought dead space 1 used. loved it. decided it was going to be worth my money to buy dead space 2 new. but, if i hadn't bought the first one used, i'd never have given them my money the second time. see what i mean? one purchase secondhand can be a sale in the future if the products are worth the money. sometimes, we need help deciding if things are worth that much money.
i know devs act all victimized about the costs of games but, maybe instead of a $10 million dollar marketing campaign, toss in some more money into development and make that game worth my $60
trying not to get really mad, but, why the fuck do they deserve my money? once they sold that game to someone else, it became THAT person's property. when i buy it from them, it becomes mine.
they got the initial money for THAT copy. for all intents and purposes, how do they even know that copy changed hands? i'm playing a perfectly good, paid for copy of the game. i'm not some dirty vagrant stealing the game off the shelf. i paid money, not as much, but i still paid!
You didn't pay them, though, you paid some random joe. How do they know? The code that came with the new copy .
And when you buy used, you can still play the game....just not online using their matchmaking which you did not pay them for.
it's like buying a car used. but suddenly i find out, to get that car, there's a fee from the manufacturer to actually drive it. WHY? wherein between that property changing hands, are devs entitled to my money?
Horrendous analogy.
The more accurate one would be you buying used and not also getting a free 25k mile check-up....but that'd make sense, so I can see why you wouldn't use it.
they should give a fuck about us because, despite buying one game used, they could gain me as a loyal customer in the future.
i bought dead space 1 used. loved it. decided it was going to be worth my money to buy dead space 2 new. but, if i hadn't bought the first one used, i'd never have given them my money the second time. see what i mean? one purchase secondhand can be a sale in the future if the products are worth the money. sometimes, we need help deciding if things are worth that much money.
i know devs act all victimized about the costs of games but, maybe instead of a $10 million dollar marketing campaign, toss in some more money into development and make that game worth my $60
You wouldn't be this upset if it wasn't worth the $60, honestly.
Bizazedo on
XBL: Bizazedo
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
I'm really not understanding this odd sense of entitlement from some people in here from people who buy games 2nd hand.
By not buying a game new, you're not actively supplying the people who run the servers with money.
So why should they give a fuck about you?
trying not to get really mad, but, why the fuck do they deserve my money? once they sold that game to someone else, it became THAT person's property. when i buy it from them, it becomes mine.
they got the initial money for THAT copy. for all intents and purposes, how do they even know that copy changed hands? i'm playing a perfectly good, paid for copy of the game. i'm not some dirty vagrant stealing the game off the shelf. i paid money, not as much, but i still paid!
it's like buying a car used. but suddenly i find out, to get that car, there's a fee from the manufacturer to actually drive it. WHY? wherein between that property changing hands, are devs entitled to my money?
they should give a fuck about us because, despite buying one game used, they could gain me as a loyal customer in the future.
i bought dead space 1 used. loved it. decided it was going to be worth my money to buy dead space 2 new. but, if i hadn't bought the first one used, i'd never have given them my money the second time. see what i mean? one purchase secondhand can be a sale in the future if the products are worth the money. sometimes, we need help deciding if things are worth that much money.
i know devs act all victimized about the costs of games but, maybe instead of a $10 million dollar marketing campaign, toss in some more money into development and make that game worth my $60
The car analogy doesn't work because (and jesus i've said this a million times), everything you need to run the car you possess. Thats not how it works with online gaming (excluding PC's). You don't own the server the games are run on. And in some cases, neither do the devs. They pay to use someone else's server.
Yes you paid someone. But you didn't pay the devs, so you're not their concern. Also i'm pretty sure there is something in the EULA that means the game isn't actually your property (to make it illegal to pirate it).
And the "hey could gain me as a loyal customer in the future" argument doesn't work because quite simply, "could" doesn't pay the bills. Actually buying the game new does.
To be honest, I would be a lot happier with the situation if it said printed on the cover "you will need to pay £/$X for online/whatever".
They don't make it very clear, and I was buying a game the other day and the staff in Gamestation weren't sure what used the online pass. They should be taking responsibility for briefing retail.
To be honest, I would be a lot happier with the situation if it said printed on the cover "you will need to pay £/$X for online/whatever".
They don't make it very clear, and I was buying a game the other day and the staff in Gamestation weren't sure what used the online pass. They should be taking responsibility for briefing retail.
This i completely agree with. It should be made clear what/what not uses the online pass.
Karl on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
To be honest, I would be a lot happier with the situation if it said printed on the cover "you will need to pay £/$X for online/whatever".
They don't make it very clear, and I was buying a game the other day and the staff in Gamestation weren't sure what used the online pass. They should be taking responsibility for briefing retail.
This i completely agree with. It should be made clear what/what not uses the online pass.
Sadly they're declaring war on retail with this action. If I were a Gamestop employee I'd be buying less EA games and then putting them in low visibility areas. Don't fuck with my bread and butter.
To be honest, I would be a lot happier with the situation if it said printed on the cover "you will need to pay £/$X for online/whatever".
They don't make it very clear, and I was buying a game the other day and the staff in Gamestation weren't sure what used the online pass. They should be taking responsibility for briefing retail.
This i completely agree with. It should be made clear what/what not uses the online pass.
Sadly they're declaring war on retail with this action. If I were a Gamestop employee I'd be buying less EA games and then putting them in low visibility areas. Don't fuck with my bread and butter.
Gamestop is getting in the DLC biz now, so I'm pretty sure EA could work something out with them.
Also, I have no problem with dissenting opinions, what I do have a problem with is people saying essentially that I don't have a right to an opinion on the matter and should shut up.
As far as I can see, no one has suggested you don't have a right to an opinion. People are disagreeing that a) the online pass is a bad thing, b) that action is warranted or desirable, and/or c) that a change is plausible.
I don't think you're wrong to be upset by the online pass. On the first two pages, realistic ways of expressing your displeasure to EA were put forth, the easiest and simplest of which being boycott. If you feel strongly about it, find as many others as you can to boycott. EA will decide whether or not they want your business.
I think the numbers are against you, that gamers won't care enough to be sufficiently vocal (and that if they did, they would have by now), but I encourage you to test that assertion. I'd rather be wrong and see consumers kick this back at EA and make them question future measures. I don't think the online pass is a big deal but as companies get more ambitiously exploitative it will be necessary for us to push back, so if you want you could call this a "line in the sand." What I'm saying is that I really don't care about the online pass, but I really really care that consumers being marginalized speak up in the right way in the near future. If not on this issue, than on the next. I totally agree that the gaming industry appears to have underdeveloped consumer advocacy. The only organizations I'm aware of have had a legal focus, predominantly to do with the case in California.
This issue seems like part of the tip of the iceberg when it comes to publishers attempting to marginalize the used games market. I think that in coming years these measures are going to get more aggressive. From the point of view of the publishers, it's probably worth alienating a proportion of customers to ultimately destroy the used games market and remove the choice altogether. After that, if you want an EA game, you have to buy it from EA.
In a perfect world evoked by first-year microeconomics courses everywhere, EA would be able to lower their prices if they no longer worried about the used games market; prices would drop more still if digital distribution became the norm. However I sincerely doubt either of these things.
Ultenth: if you really care about this issue and where it might lead the industry, read up on advocacy and see what you can actually do. The flaw in using a forum to stir people is that too many of us are either agnostic or disagree with you- so seek out the people who care, and who feel the same way you do. Join up with consumer advocates; start an organization. If you show them you are super serial, they will take you super serial. As they experience persistent, public, vocal resistance to actions of a certain type from a substantial organization, they will be forced to think twice. If they hear that some commenters on Kotaku don't like it and some forums are buzzing, they will continue to not listen.
tl;dr: Don't care about the online pass. Do care that gamers don't have prominent organized consumer advocacy yet.
To be honest, I would be a lot happier with the situation if it said printed on the cover "you will need to pay £/$X for online/whatever".
They don't make it very clear, and I was buying a game the other day and the staff in Gamestation weren't sure what used the online pass. They should be taking responsibility for briefing retail.
This i completely agree with. It should be made clear what/what not uses the online pass.
Sadly they're declaring war on retail with this action. If I were a Gamestop employee I'd be buying less EA games and then putting them in low visibility areas. Don't fuck with my bread and butter.
Thats good. It would force EA to re-consider the whole thing if the sale of their games at release were hurt.
To be honest, I would be a lot happier with the situation if it said printed on the cover "you will need to pay £/$X for online/whatever".
They don't make it very clear, and I was buying a game the other day and the staff in Gamestation weren't sure what used the online pass. They should be taking responsibility for briefing retail.
This i completely agree with. It should be made clear what/what not uses the online pass.
Sadly they're declaring war on retail with this action. If I were a Gamestop employee I'd be buying less EA games and then putting them in low visibility areas. Don't fuck with my bread and butter.
These are really good ideas. It makes me wonder what EA is doing to prevent Gamestop from taking some kind of retaliatory action, or why Gamestop isn't on the ball.
Because if one of the big 3 stopped dealing with Gamestop. They all might, and Gamestops model won't work as only used games for used games, too big of a risk.
While a lot of their revenue relies on new titles, the margin on those is razor thin, so I wouldn't rule out Gamestop still being viable as an exclusively second-hand store. That said, I find it unlikely that EA would pull out of Gamestop altogether, and if they did, I find it unlikely that other publishers would follow suit. Gamestop doesn't make a lot of money by selling new games, but the publishers still cull a lot of revenue out of them.
As someone mentioned that they don't do a good job of pointing this out, either by their own people or conveying that to retail and/or rental places. The whole Online Pass to me just seems like dirty pool and I've gotten bit by it a few times already, renting games from GameFly to play with friends only to find out I get "3 Days of Trial Mode" and then I gotta pony up to keep going. Dead Space 2 was the most recent one, and I know Bulletstorm (another game I'd planned on renting) will have it as well.
I bitched and moaned and then realized I'll just vote with my wallet. I would buy a few EA games a year before but with this in place I just won't bother. I'll do the single-player crap and send it on back to GameFly
Allforce on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Because if one of the big 3 stopped dealing with Gamestop. They all might, and Gamestops model won't work as only used games for used games, too big of a risk.
The problem of course is that Gamestop accounts for 20% of EA's revenue. I definitely think that Gamestop is in the catbird seat in the relationship if stuff goes to hell.
I wonder how much of Gamestops revenue is from EA let alone the main publishers.
Edit: From Gamestop 10-Q
~42% is from new game sales
~25% is from used game sales
What's interesting about all this is how publishers/devs/stores/customers keep trying to change what type of product a video game is.
Take.... GameX. Person A buys GameX in a store, so let's just say that there's a 2 year period where he'll be able play the game at it's fullest (ie. be supported with new DLC, EA keeps the online server switched on). Now if personA plays that game for the full 2 years, then EA's got no problem with it, however at 18 months if personA decides to give/lend/sell the game to personB, he loses the ability to play the game, but the final 6 months are all for personB. There's still only one gameX in play, and only one person can play it at a time. To the person(s) it looks like there's only one physical game involved but EA freak out because there's now they see 2 licences. It's a sneaky little 'double-dip' .
But overall it's just a dick move. Of course, if they really wanted to solve the second hand problem the old way to do that would be to just make games that are so good you'll want to keep them, but hey; we're talking about 'yearly-incremental-update-EA' here so that's not an option.
/ Not all the time, a gem like Mass Effect 2 is always nice
// Screw NFS HP tho
/// Where's the other half of that game? It's just filled with time-trials dammit.
Shutdown on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
But overall it's just a dick move. Of course, if they really wanted to solve the second hand problem the old way to do that would be to just make games that are so good you'll want to keep them, but hey; we're talking about 'yearly-incremental-update-EA' here so that's not an option.
The unexpected thing here is that the yearly updates are the most profitable titles in the EA repitoire and sales likely dont suffer too badly from used market sales.
I'm going to make my guess that the titles that are really hurt by the used game market are RPG/Adventure games or those lacking online interaction. Which is funny because this is like EA's double down on making sure not even one used multiplayer experience is to be had.
Because if one of the big 3 stopped dealing with Gamestop. They all might, and Gamestops model won't work as only used games for used games, too big of a risk.
The problem of course is that Gamestop accounts for 20% of EA's revenue. I definitely think that Gamestop is in the catbird seat in the relationship if stuff goes to hell.
I wonder how much of Gamestops revenue is from EA let alone the main publishers.
Edit: From Gamestop 10-Q
~42% is from new game sales
~25% is from used game sales
Profit is entirely backwards
~17% is from New
~47% is from Used
Profit though is the exact opposite
Does anyone believe that gamestop is also benefiting from pocketing sales tax of used games?
They do shady things such as - selling games as new; you go to the register with an empty case - which should have a manual; but sometimes doesn't (you have to catch them on that, because once they tried this) and they pull out a disc from a filing cabinet full of discs in paper sleeves and stick it in the case. If you're lucky they might shrinkwrap it for you, but mostly they don't in my experience.
Anyhoo back to the question, does anyone believe their gamestop is pocketing the sales tax of reused inventory they believe is hot sellers?
Schwhat on
0
Options
proyebatGARY WAS HEREASH IS A LOSERRegistered Userregular
edited February 2011
Sales tax is computed at the point-of-sale, so there is no money for GameStop to use until the game is bought.
Also, I have never been in a GameStop where you didn't just ask the cashier for the game and they pulled a perfectly new sealed copy off the giant shelf behind them. I've never even heard of them having you go hunt for a game box off the shelf for some new release and bring it up to the counter for them.
Also, I have never been in a GameStop where you didn't just ask the cashier for the game and they pulled a perfectly new sealed copy off the giant shelf behind them. I've never even heard of them having you go hunt for a game box off the shelf for some new release and bring it up to the counter for them.
You want say, Dead Space 2, you're saying at the Gamestop you have to walk in, find the empty case for it on the Wall O' Games and then take it to the cashier? Here (I'll admit I haven't bought from a GameStop in years) you just walk up to the counter and say "Hey can I get Dead Space 2?" and they grab one off the shelf behind them.
Damn right it doesn't make sense. Except, it still happens.
I walk up, and say, "Hey, I'm looking for Etrian Odessey 3."
They say, "Uh, what?" So I go and grab the box from the wall, and then, when I bring it up to them, they don't have the manual ... somehow. And, yet, they're still selling it for full price.
So, basically, I don't buy many games from GameStop anymore, because this happened to me too many times. Amazon (and Capitalism), ho!
You want say, Dead Space 2, you're saying at the Gamestop you have to walk in, find the empty case for it on the Wall O' Games and then take it to the cashier? Here (I'll admit I haven't bought from a GameStop in years) you just walk up to the counter and say "Hey can I get Dead Space 2?" and they grab one off the shelf behind them.
Try going in and try to buy a game that's not on the wall behind them. If you wait to buy a new game after the next hot release comes out, they gut two or three and put them on the wall. If you're one of the last people in the store to want that game before they have to restock you're getting an opened game.
Ruins on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Also, I have never been in a GameStop where you didn't just ask the cashier for the game and they pulled a perfectly new sealed copy off the giant shelf behind them. I've never even heard of them having you go hunt for a game box off the shelf for some new release and bring it up to the counter for them.
Damn right it doesn't make sense. Except, it still happens.
I walk up, and say, "Hey, I'm looking for Etrian Odessey 3."
They say, "Uh, what?" So I go and grab the box from the wall, and then, when I bring it up to them, they don't have the manual ... somehow. And, yet, they're still selling it for full price.
So, basically, I don't buy many games from GameStop anymore, because this happened to me too many times. Amazon (and Capitalism), ho!
Sales tax is computed at the point-of-sale, so there is no money for GameStop to use until the game is bought.
No, I meant it that they pocket the sales tax when they sell you the used game.
1) Person A buys new game and gets charged sales tax.
2) Person A sells the game to Gamestop for 30-40% of a new copy of that game.
3) Gamestop marks up the used game to $5 less than a new copy of the game.
4) They sell it to person B and charge sales tax.
Technically if the game is a hot seller it may not make it to the books that they bought the game. Thus, they could just say they never bought the game and pocket the sales tax.
Damn right it doesn't make sense. Except, it still happens.
I walk up, and say, "Hey, I'm looking for Etrian Odessey 3."
They say, "Uh, what?" So I go and grab the box from the wall, and then, when I bring it up to them, they don't have the manual ... somehow. And, yet, they're still selling it for full price.
So, basically, I don't buy many games from GameStop anymore, because this happened to me too many times. Amazon (and Capitalism), ho!
There's your problem right there.
That he likes cool games which are not hyped AAA titles, or that he expects GameStop to know what they are?
You want say, Dead Space 2, you're saying at the Gamestop you have to walk in, find the empty case for it on the Wall O' Games and then take it to the cashier? Here (I'll admit I haven't bought from a GameStop in years) you just walk up to the counter and say "Hey can I get Dead Space 2?" and they grab one off the shelf behind them.
or you buy a game that they don't have extra copies (like when I tried to get Alan Wake) of and they'll take the DVD out of the mystery drawer behind the counter, slip it in, and sell it as new
Damn right it doesn't make sense. Except, it still happens.
I walk up, and say, "Hey, I'm looking for Etrian Odessey 3."
They say, "Uh, what?" So I go and grab the box from the wall, and then, when I bring it up to them, they don't have the manual ... somehow. And, yet, they're still selling it for full price.
So, basically, I don't buy many games from GameStop anymore, because this happened to me too many times. Amazon (and Capitalism), ho!
There's your problem right there.
Hey, if you want to be the silly goose ignoring one of the best games ever, that's your own business. Goosiness.
You want say, Dead Space 2, you're saying at the Gamestop you have to walk in, find the empty case for it on the Wall O' Games and then take it to the cashier? Here (I'll admit I haven't bought from a GameStop in years) you just walk up to the counter and say "Hey can I get Dead Space 2?" and they grab one off the shelf behind them.
or you buy a game that they don't have extra copies (like when I tried to get Alan Wake) of and they'll take the DVD out of the mystery drawer behind the counter, slip it in, and sell it as new
Or better yet that time I went and got Ravin Rabbids 2 and they slipped in Ravin Rabbids 1. For the longest time I had this feeling of deja vu and I didn't know why.
SoulGate on
0
Options
proyebatGARY WAS HEREASH IS A LOSERRegistered Userregular
Sales tax is computed at the point-of-sale, so there is no money for GameStop to use until the game is bought.
No, I meant it that they pocket the sales tax when they sell you the used game.
1) Person A buys new game and gets charged sales tax.
2) Person A sells the game to Gamestop for 30-40% of a new copy of that game.
3) Gamestop marks up the used game to $5 less than a new copy of the game.
4) They sell it to person B and charge sales tax.
Technically if the game is a hot seller it may not make it to the books that they bought the game. Thus, they could just say they never bought the game and pocket the sales tax.
Uh they do that everyday. It's still a taxable product thus they have to charge you sales tax, that tax money is something they have to pay the State.
Also for your second point, they have an inventory system, that tracks which GameStop has what game new/used. Any store not reporting sales would get fucked over big time when another GameStop refers a customer for a game request (Like how I found out the closest GameStop with a copy of Valkyria Chronicles is an hours drive fffffffff) and that GameStop has no gaems.
Posts
It's still bullshit though.
You can do that?
Son of a bitch why did no one tell me.
Screw anything to do with GFWL though, I don't even try to get that to work properly, it's wasted effort.
This is my review of Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit.
First off, I have not 'Hijacked your thread', I'm vocal about my opinions, and am being an active participant in the thread, this is how threads go, other questions are asked and speculated on but as long as a mod is allowing it to move forward, you should have no problem with it, otherwise if you want a specific question answered post in help and advice.
Threads are online conversations with many participents, and like conversation, they are protean, they evolve and jump around, promoting further disscussion, its a good topic for a thread let it breath.
And I've never told you to shut up, I have an issue with you presenting your ideas as FACT not opinion, if you wish to debate ideas, grow some hard skin, not everyone will agree with you, I have a degree in Graphic Design and Marketing and TRUST me, I've presented bad ideas and been torn down so fast it hurts, It sucks but I've also spun a layer of bullshit over a bad idea so well its seemed like a good one, present us with some solid, Well reserched facts with sources and you may be able to change my opinion but just now, all your doing is doomsaying and then chucking your dummy out of the pram.
Edit: Also Lewie...well played sir.
By not buying a game new, you're not actively supplying the people who run the servers with money.
So why should they give a fuck about you?
Because many of us won't even buy the game if we can't buy it 2nd hand.
trying not to get really mad, but, why the fuck do they deserve my money? once they sold that game to someone else, it became THAT person's property. when i buy it from them, it becomes mine.
they got the initial money for THAT copy. for all intents and purposes, how do they even know that copy changed hands? i'm playing a perfectly good, paid for copy of the game. i'm not some dirty vagrant stealing the game off the shelf. i paid money, not as much, but i still paid!
it's like buying a car used. but suddenly i find out, to get that car, there's a fee from the manufacturer to actually drive it. WHY? wherein between that property changing hands, are devs entitled to my money?
they should give a fuck about us because, despite buying one game used, they could gain me as a loyal customer in the future.
i bought dead space 1 used. loved it. decided it was going to be worth my money to buy dead space 2 new. but, if i hadn't bought the first one used, i'd never have given them my money the second time. see what i mean? one purchase secondhand can be a sale in the future if the products are worth the money. sometimes, we need help deciding if things are worth that much money.
i know devs act all victimized about the costs of games but, maybe instead of a $10 million dollar marketing campaign, toss in some more money into development and make that game worth my $60
And when you buy used, you can still play the game....just not online using their matchmaking which you did not pay them for. Horrendous analogy.
The more accurate one would be you buying used and not also getting a free 25k mile check-up....but that'd make sense, so I can see why you wouldn't use it.
You wouldn't be this upset if it wasn't worth the $60, honestly.
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
The car analogy doesn't work because (and jesus i've said this a million times), everything you need to run the car you possess. Thats not how it works with online gaming (excluding PC's). You don't own the server the games are run on. And in some cases, neither do the devs. They pay to use someone else's server.
Yes you paid someone. But you didn't pay the devs, so you're not their concern. Also i'm pretty sure there is something in the EULA that means the game isn't actually your property (to make it illegal to pirate it).
And the "hey could gain me as a loyal customer in the future" argument doesn't work because quite simply, "could" doesn't pay the bills. Actually buying the game new does.
They don't make it very clear, and I was buying a game the other day and the staff in Gamestation weren't sure what used the online pass. They should be taking responsibility for briefing retail.
This i completely agree with. It should be made clear what/what not uses the online pass.
Sadly they're declaring war on retail with this action. If I were a Gamestop employee I'd be buying less EA games and then putting them in low visibility areas. Don't fuck with my bread and butter.
Gamestop is getting in the DLC biz now, so I'm pretty sure EA could work something out with them.
Twitter
As far as I can see, no one has suggested you don't have a right to an opinion. People are disagreeing that a) the online pass is a bad thing, b) that action is warranted or desirable, and/or c) that a change is plausible.
I don't think you're wrong to be upset by the online pass. On the first two pages, realistic ways of expressing your displeasure to EA were put forth, the easiest and simplest of which being boycott. If you feel strongly about it, find as many others as you can to boycott. EA will decide whether or not they want your business.
I think the numbers are against you, that gamers won't care enough to be sufficiently vocal (and that if they did, they would have by now), but I encourage you to test that assertion. I'd rather be wrong and see consumers kick this back at EA and make them question future measures. I don't think the online pass is a big deal but as companies get more ambitiously exploitative it will be necessary for us to push back, so if you want you could call this a "line in the sand." What I'm saying is that I really don't care about the online pass, but I really really care that consumers being marginalized speak up in the right way in the near future. If not on this issue, than on the next. I totally agree that the gaming industry appears to have underdeveloped consumer advocacy. The only organizations I'm aware of have had a legal focus, predominantly to do with the case in California.
This issue seems like part of the tip of the iceberg when it comes to publishers attempting to marginalize the used games market. I think that in coming years these measures are going to get more aggressive. From the point of view of the publishers, it's probably worth alienating a proportion of customers to ultimately destroy the used games market and remove the choice altogether. After that, if you want an EA game, you have to buy it from EA.
In a perfect world evoked by first-year microeconomics courses everywhere, EA would be able to lower their prices if they no longer worried about the used games market; prices would drop more still if digital distribution became the norm. However I sincerely doubt either of these things.
Ultenth: if you really care about this issue and where it might lead the industry, read up on advocacy and see what you can actually do. The flaw in using a forum to stir people is that too many of us are either agnostic or disagree with you- so seek out the people who care, and who feel the same way you do. Join up with consumer advocates; start an organization. If you show them you are super serial, they will take you super serial. As they experience persistent, public, vocal resistance to actions of a certain type from a substantial organization, they will be forced to think twice. If they hear that some commenters on Kotaku don't like it and some forums are buzzing, they will continue to not listen.
tl;dr: Don't care about the online pass. Do care that gamers don't have prominent organized consumer advocacy yet.
PS., LewieP, your NFS review was dead on.
Thats good. It would force EA to re-consider the whole thing if the sale of their games at release were hurt.
These are really good ideas. It makes me wonder what EA is doing to prevent Gamestop from taking some kind of retaliatory action, or why Gamestop isn't on the ball.
I bitched and moaned and then realized I'll just vote with my wallet. I would buy a few EA games a year before but with this in place I just won't bother. I'll do the single-player crap and send it on back to GameFly
The problem of course is that Gamestop accounts for 20% of EA's revenue. I definitely think that Gamestop is in the catbird seat in the relationship if stuff goes to hell.
I wonder how much of Gamestops revenue is from EA let alone the main publishers.
Edit: From Gamestop 10-Q
~42% is from new game sales
~25% is from used game sales
Profit is entirely backwards
~17% is from New
~47% is from Used
Profit though is the exact opposite
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
That's never gonna happen. Gamestop's already getting in the DLC biz.
Twitter
What's interesting about all this is how publishers/devs/stores/customers keep trying to change what type of product a video game is.
Take.... GameX. Person A buys GameX in a store, so let's just say that there's a 2 year period where he'll be able play the game at it's fullest (ie. be supported with new DLC, EA keeps the online server switched on). Now if personA plays that game for the full 2 years, then EA's got no problem with it, however at 18 months if personA decides to give/lend/sell the game to personB, he loses the ability to play the game, but the final 6 months are all for personB. There's still only one gameX in play, and only one person can play it at a time. To the person(s) it looks like there's only one physical game involved but EA freak out because there's now they see 2 licences. It's a sneaky little 'double-dip' .
But overall it's just a dick move. Of course, if they really wanted to solve the second hand problem the old way to do that would be to just make games that are so good you'll want to keep them, but hey; we're talking about 'yearly-incremental-update-EA' here so that's not an option.
/ Not all the time, a gem like Mass Effect 2 is always nice
// Screw NFS HP tho
/// Where's the other half of that game? It's just filled with time-trials dammit.
The unexpected thing here is that the yearly updates are the most profitable titles in the EA repitoire and sales likely dont suffer too badly from used market sales.
I'm going to make my guess that the titles that are really hurt by the used game market are RPG/Adventure games or those lacking online interaction. Which is funny because this is like EA's double down on making sure not even one used multiplayer experience is to be had.
Does anyone believe that gamestop is also benefiting from pocketing sales tax of used games?
They do shady things such as - selling games as new; you go to the register with an empty case - which should have a manual; but sometimes doesn't (you have to catch them on that, because once they tried this) and they pull out a disc from a filing cabinet full of discs in paper sleeves and stick it in the case. If you're lucky they might shrinkwrap it for you, but mostly they don't in my experience.
Anyhoo back to the question, does anyone believe their gamestop is pocketing the sales tax of reused inventory they believe is hot sellers?
Then you haven't bought the right games.
This happens to me all the time.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
You want say, Dead Space 2, you're saying at the Gamestop you have to walk in, find the empty case for it on the Wall O' Games and then take it to the cashier? Here (I'll admit I haven't bought from a GameStop in years) you just walk up to the counter and say "Hey can I get Dead Space 2?" and they grab one off the shelf behind them.
Damn right it doesn't make sense. Except, it still happens.
I walk up, and say, "Hey, I'm looking for Etrian Odessey 3."
They say, "Uh, what?" So I go and grab the box from the wall, and then, when I bring it up to them, they don't have the manual ... somehow. And, yet, they're still selling it for full price.
So, basically, I don't buy many games from GameStop anymore, because this happened to me too many times. Amazon (and Capitalism), ho!
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
This might vary by location based on shrinkage.
There's your problem right there.
No, I meant it that they pocket the sales tax when they sell you the used game.
1) Person A buys new game and gets charged sales tax.
2) Person A sells the game to Gamestop for 30-40% of a new copy of that game.
3) Gamestop marks up the used game to $5 less than a new copy of the game.
4) They sell it to person B and charge sales tax.
Technically if the game is a hot seller it may not make it to the books that they bought the game. Thus, they could just say they never bought the game and pocket the sales tax.
That he likes cool games which are not hyped AAA titles, or that he expects GameStop to know what they are?
or you buy a game that they don't have extra copies (like when I tried to get Alan Wake) of and they'll take the DVD out of the mystery drawer behind the counter, slip it in, and sell it as new
Hey, if you want to be the silly goose ignoring one of the best games ever, that's your own business. Goosiness.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Or better yet that time I went and got Ravin Rabbids 2 and they slipped in Ravin Rabbids 1. For the longest time I had this feeling of deja vu and I didn't know why.
Also for your second point, they have an inventory system, that tracks which GameStop has what game new/used. Any store not reporting sales would get fucked over big time when another GameStop refers a customer for a game request (Like how I found out the closest GameStop with a copy of Valkyria Chronicles is an hours drive fffffffff) and that GameStop has no gaems.