Replace the phrase "I want my two dollars" with the slightly more complicated "I want you to pay me more money for a game you bought used, even though we received full price at retail originally," and you'll have a pretty good grasp on the situation here. For a while now game companies have been waging war against used game sales, most recently resorting to DLC unlock codes in games that can only be redeemed once, making the used purchase less attractive. However,
EA Sports has escalated this practice right out of the stratosphere with its new "Online Pass" feature. Basically, the original purchaser is bestowed online functionality, added features, and bonus content, out of the
kindness of EA's heart (and a fun-to-enter redeem code), while a used buyer will get a 7 day trial of those things, and then have to pony up $10 if they want to keep at it. Yeah, you heard that correctly: you'll have to pay $10 to play
FutureMadden: Robots in the Red Zone online if you bought it used. The first title to get this special treatment will be
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11, and after that? Well, we're really hoping this doesn't take off, but the most unfortunate aspect of this diabolical scheme is we really don't see how this could possibly hurt EA's bottom line. Sure, it's evil, but that's never stopped them before.
posted May 11th 2010 10:04AM
id still rather buy used and only give them $10 instead of $60, if they're gonna be dicks about it.
@noyourmom
So, you'd go to GameStop and pay them Retail - 10% + $10 Network usage fee, which usually will come out to Retail or Retail + $5, instead of paying $60 which is broken down to about 30-50% distribution/printing/manufacturing/publishing/etc., 40-50% developer, 10-20% retailer? Go ahead. That $60 doesn't all go to EA, EA only gets about $25-30 of it. If you'd rather pay GameStop $50-55 for the game they bought back for $15-20 thats your choice.
@3dpenguin
really id rather just buy it used on ebay, and circumvent the whole thing. but if i was gonna buy it at gamestop used anyways, this wouldn't do anything to encourage me to buy it new.
Relax guy, it is okay thing they do here. Soon this will come to video too and screw over those cheapskate who buy used Blu-ray on eBay and think they get to watch funny movie for $5.
...and the bum rush of comments protesting EA online will do absolutely nothing since those very same loudmouths will go right out and buy another copy of Madden.
EA doesn't give a crap about good will because video game players in general can't stick together worth a damn. Played Halo lately? Just listen to them.
Its funny to me that they choose the sports line that historically contains both less content and the least amount of updates...year after year.
Add to the fact that at their whim, they could disable the online functionality of said game within a year or two.
Unfortunately EA publishes a LOT of freakin' games. There's no way you could call yourself a video game player and avoid titles like;
Mass Effect, Burnout, Battlefied, Crysis, Madden, Rock Band, Dragon Age, Dead Space, Left 4 Dead and so on and so forth...
What a dirtball move that is meant only to hurt the used games market. I guess EA games are off the list now.
@jimmyh
The used game market has been hurting EA and other developers for years, I'm surprised this sort of thing hasn't happened yet, oh it did already by EA, their sports games which support roster updates have charged for the use of this feature on used games for several years now, many people just ignored it though, now EA is going to the next step and charging for the only redeeming feature in their EA Sports service, the online service. If you want to know who to blame for it coming to this, blame the used game industry. GameStop and other used game stores intentionally undermine SRP new prices by a few bucks and then push the games as a deal just to increase their profit margins from %10-20 on the new to around 70% on the used. On those new games GameStop makes an average of $5-10, while on the used games they make SRP - $5 - Trade-in. So on a $60 game they'd make $35-40 depending on how much they paid for the used copy.
@3dpenguin
My point exactly...you can make up for the $10 fee from EA by buying 2 used games. Stop crying everybody...People deserve to get paid for what they produce. If you don't want it, play a football game endorsed by Arena Football or Happy Gilmore 2011
I'm glad I got out of games hahaha ^-^ I always hated EA, though.
For my PC games I have been associating each game with a different account. That way if I ever want to sell it or give it to a friend/family member, I can hand over the email account and all is good. They also (depending on the game) have a ranked up account.
So this Robots in the Red Zone game...is that coming out soon?
just another reason why i dislike EA and refuse to buy games from them. Honestly, I would not be so upset with all the re-branding of the same games year after year, or the assimilation of some of the best game companies out there, but once again they have taken it too far.
This scheme may give them a bit more money in the short run, but I bet it will hurt EA in later years when people realize that the potential game they want to buy used will cost them even more to get online gameplay out of it.
Then I would expect the new game price to drop $10 and the code to be optional. If not, then they've created a fee out of nothing, and I condemn EA for committing such abuse. Jerks.
I buy used games as much as anyone, but how exactly is this evil? Vote with your wallets, not comments. At the end of the day, purchases of new games go to further development and maintenance on network play. Making sure they're paid for it isn't evil, it's American...Luckily, I don't play sports games!
Just wait until people find out they can unlock the "hot coffee" mod on Tiger Woods 11. Then they'll easily pony up for the extra 10 bucks.
I'm a huge intellectual freedom/property rights person. Generally.
That said, I think the video game companies have a leg to stand on -- especially as the used game market has zero regulation.
Look at it this way -- what if you could sell, at near-full price, a ticket to a movie you just walked out of. Used video game sales are similar, where the middle man cuts out the manufacturer. Sure, it's one thing to give your game to a friend or sell it on Craigslist -- it's another altogether when a company makes billions selling something they invested no energy into creating, at just below full price (thus cutting off the actual game designer).
What EA is doing here is actually better than, say, ridiculous DRM measures or stupid add-on sales. Rather, they're giving the first purchaser a full game and punishing those who buy it used (or at least forcing down the used sale price considerably).
Ultimately, game companies need some sort of legal protection from the used game market; until then, this sort of behavior is perfectly rational business, not "evil."
I'll tell you how it hurts the bottom line. Mirror's Edge will remain the last EA game that I have bought until they abandon this ridiculous practice.
Sorry, former IW guys. You've gone from a publisher that I won't purchase from because of how they screwed you into leaving to a publisher that I won't purchase from because they're screwing the user.
EA must have looked at Activision and said "hey, WTF?!? We're the ones who users are supposed to hate... Here, let me fix that for you..."
@chaboud This really upsets you? why? it costs YOU the gamer NOTHING? it will only hurt Gamestop really as they will surely have to eat the cost and sell used games at a lower price. I mean you really need to do some research and see how much money game companies are losing to that retailer. If you like games and want studios to keep making them you SHOULD be for this....
@Kungpowking
I disagree with you, it shouldn't be on the consumer to pay for this. The war and outcry between companies like EA and the retailers like Gamestop should be between them. Hopefully Gamestop will eat that cost somehow but I find it unlikely and it looks like the consumer will be getting the crap end of the stick.
@Plazmic Flame
You DO understand the definition of consumer right? They pay for things, that's their place...*shakes head*
@Kungpowking
Perhaps you need to read up on the first-sale doctrine, but the idea behind media sales is that limits the control that the copyright holder can exert over subsequent sale. You get to sell media once, and anything that that purchaser (or any subsequent purchaser) does with that copy of that media is their prerogative.
This is a blatant end-run of the first-sale doctrine. EA got their money when they sold the game in the first place. The original purchaser of the game, by virtue of selling it, can no longer log-in and play, so it's a case of swapping new resources for old. EA shouldn't get a second bite of the apple just because they want one.
You are not entitled to the business-model of your choosing. If the DoJ and State Attorneys General won't go out and sue the crap out of EA for these sorts of maybe-legal-in-name-only actions, the least that I can do is boycott their games.
Regardless if they keep the new restriction in place, I think we can all be certain we won't be seeing it on Tiger Woods PGA Tour 12.
engadget is way off on this one. they forget that used sales eat into New Retail sales. This way instead of EA (and others) losing $60 they are only losing $50 effectively. Yeah it kind of is lame for those who buy used only but i am 100% they will be priced lower now to compensate and the consumer will pay exactly teh same amount and only the Used game retailer will be getting hosed here.....i mean its ok to think people....
What's that sound? Sounds vaguely like the entire video game rental industry flushing down a toilet.
"Failed to create EA account. Cannot connect to EA online."
- won't affect me as they don't want me to play anyway :(
I wrote pretty extensively about the reprocussions for the Madden game here:
http://madden.easportsfans.com/2010/05/how-eas-project-ten-dollar-will-change-madden-and-why-it-shouldnt/
As well as another method that might be more functional but less likely.
No suprise, they aleady start doing that crap with roster updated.
I brought used NBA live 10, and find out that seller had use the code aleady, and is 1 time used only for roster updated, wasn't happy that was asking to paid $20 for roster update.
Their new ad slogan:
EA Sports - It's (not) in the game. (You have to pay extra for that.)
EA: Proof of just how out of touch a company can become when they don't think/listen to their customers.
I still want a refund on my copy of C&C4, EA. You sold me online restricted DRM crap. I'm not happy.
Actually, I'm secretly hoping EA fails and goes down the drain - leaving smaller indie developers to take over. Developers who actually focus on the customer instead of screwing them over with restrictive DRM, ridiculous conditions and poorly designed games.
Support indie developers. And Valve. They aren't evil yet.
I don't have any problem with this and I am not EA's biggest fan.
When you purchase software, you are actually purchasing a license to play the software, install it, etc. You do not actually own the code, and so your license is not transferrable.
The secondary market for games may be big business for Game Stop and Blockbuster etc, but they suck quite a lot of money out of the primary games market, and hurt the producers of the games whose sales suffer.
In my opinion, this is a far nicer method of ensuring revenue for games people like to play to the producer of the game, then the very restrictive DRM methods and such of Ubi etc.
You own the CD, and the right to play the game, by license. Your right to transfer the license to play isn't granted by the software owner/developer.
Why is everyone so hot to make Game Stop rich but complains when EA would like to receive the actual revenue their games produce?
Game Stop resells the software with hardly any discount from a new software purchase and it cost them very little to acquire the software. Its pure profit for them but the developer of the product gets very little revenue compared to the number of people using the product.
This is why I like being secluded playing my single player RPGs. Besides I do more video gaming on my cell phone then I do on my DS anyways.
"Two Dollars. I want my Two Dollars!"
Five pages of comments and no one got the picture reference.... sigh. I feel old.
I'm all for it. Anybody that buys a game used has no right to complain when the sequel to their beloved game doesn't get approved because of poor sales of the first game (thanks to used copies cannibalizing sales of new copies, and thus cutting of the publisher/developer's share of the profits).
Anything to stop or slow used game sales is good in my book. I don't buy them (with the exception of retro / out-of-print games, since new copies aren't available). GameStop and their ilk can die in a fire as far as I'm concerned. The mom & pop game store with the museum like collection of classic used retro titles can stay though. They're fulfilling a need, GameStop is just abusing the industry for their own gain.
It's with a big smile on my face that I announce that nothing this company does will entice me to start giving them any of my money !
They are really crossing a line with this ! But thats okay, they are a greedy company, that's what you expect from them...
What's really revolting is the fact that there are gutless moronic sheeps that are ready to defend these practices in the names of the devs or the publisher.... Screw them... (Don't pull out your whip just yet, i'm going somewhere with this !)
The real problem is that it really hurt the consumer. Here's a very plausible situation.
These limitations only apply to multiplayers, and in games which aren't really time limited by a scenario (Madden). Therefore the "complete the game in five hours and then sell it" scenario is completly irrelevent ! Because, you play until you've had enough... not till the game's completed.
Also, what if you don't like it !?!
So, you bought a game, you tried it, you hate it.
You wasted 60$, and you used your unlocking code, because let's face it, that's the first thing that pops up when you first boot up the game (It was in Bad Company 2) and you wanted to get it done ASAP so you could play ! What do you do ?
Re-sell it...
Now try to get a reasonable price with all the crap EA's been playing on you ! This isn't fair...
Being the Internet, if I tell you this story, your reaction is probably that you don't care ! We all are selfish jerks behind monitors, aren't we... You'll tell me something in the line of ; Should'a known better dumbass, get informed next time and suck it up ...
Well, this is exactly what i say to the devs ; Screw you, should'a known better when you got in the business...
Treating them like they probably would have treated me...
Am i right and/or fair in my thinking ? Probably not !
Are they in theirs ?
- A selfish Jerk behind a monitor.
Who's to blame? Immediately it is EA for trying to make money. Bugt GameStop is the original evil empire. GameStop is NOT the entire used games industry just as walmart isn't the entire discount retail industry. My store loses money on new game sales. Why? I pay $57 plus shipping to get a new title in my store. I make all my money on used items. Keep in mind, used games don't exist if they aren't sold new first.
Is it just me..or did EA already do this with Battlefield Bad Company 2? They had a code where you could DL all the map packs that came out and if that code was used you had to pay to get one?
Screw EA. Dickweeds. They can kiss my hairy pale anus. I haven't bought any of their games since the whole Spore rapefest and after this crap I definitely won't EVER buy anymore. I'll miss my Tiger Woods games, but I'm not going to sell my soul to the devil to own them.
EA's been doing this for a while. I have to fork over $10 to them to send me a new serial for my copy of The Sims 3 (it was given to me by a friend) if I want to register the game to my account (cause my friend already registered it to hers).
I can't use their store content in my game until I do this. *eyeroll*