EA online pass. Read up on the extortion

Starting with the release of Tiger Woods PGA tour 2011, EA sports will be introducing a one time use code to use ANY online features. Multiplayer, content download. If it involves using online, you can forget about it if you don't have that code. So, if you buy an EA sports game used, you will have to pay a $10 charge to get ANY online. Now, I'm from the UK and I don't even like EA sports games, but this is disgusting. It's extortion. So, to everyone reading this, and I hope plenty of people do, I say to you. Do you NEED next years sports games? It wont end here. Ubisoft is thinking ofimplementingthis too. Where will it end? This is extortion, plain and simple. So, I ay to every EA sports fan, do not buy any of 2011's sports games. Play Madden 2010. Play Fifa 2010. It astounds me how people are not taking a stand against this.

Now, I'll probably get banned by the gamespot mods or something for speaking out against this but I hope people will see this and get the word out. Let EA know that we, as consumers, will not be taken advantage of.

Thanks to these **** THQ and several other companies have adopted this policy. I was looking forward to UFC unleashed 2010, but I cancelled it because of this. I've cancelled all my EA pre-orders too, of which I had 6. I'm not buying from a company pulling this, we should all vote with our wallets, and not.

Exactly. It won't end at EA sports. Sure, it might suck that we can't get the games we want but these companies expect us to bend over and take it. Well, enough is enough. Seriously, as far as I'm concerned, if you buy a game with an online pass, you're killing the games industry

Exactly. It won't end at EA sports. Sure, it might suck that we can't get the games we want but these companies expect us to bend over and take it. Well, enough is enough. Seriously, as far as I'm concerned, if you buy a game with an online pass, you're killing the games industry

ObsidianRocker

Good. I mean, I can see why they want to do this but it doesn't justify it. The MAss Effect 2 cerberus network was fair enough. One time payment for several free DLC downloads. But to get ANY online access you have to pay $10 (Which is probably only about £5 here, but it's still a piss take) is extortion, plain and simple. It's a double tax

The cerberus network thing with ME2 was fair enough, but this?

Good think I hate sports games.

Thanks to these **** THQ and several other companies have adopted this policy. I was looking forward to UFC unleashed 2010, but I cancelled it because of this. I've cancelled all my EA pre-orders too, of which I had 6. I'm not buying from a company pulling this, we should all vote with our wallets, and not.

Andrew_Xavier

If you were planning on getting UFC 2010 new, why would you care about this issue? The only people who have to pay are those who bought it used.

[QUOTE="Andrew_Xavier"]

Thanks to these **** THQ and several other companies have adopted this policy. I was looking forward to UFC unleashed 2010, but I cancelled it because of this. I've cancelled all my EA pre-orders too, of which I had 6. I'm not buying from a company pulling this, we should all vote with our wallets, and not.

Grammaton-Cleric

If you were planning on getting UFC 2010 new, why would you care about this issue? The only people who have to pay are those who bought it used.

Actually, THQ made it mandatory for anyone who owns UFC 2010 to pay five bucks to get the online modes. I just bought it new for both consoles because I own a game center, and when I put in the 360 version it said there was DLC available. I went to see what it was and it was "online features" with a price of 400 Microsoft points. I was like WTF? I just paid SIXTY DOLLARS for a brand new copy, and now I have to pay another fivejust to play online? The EA way I kind of understand, but this is straight-up extortion.

The thing is, they're going to charge for online features, which includes downloading content, which I bet they will charge for. If, by the grace of some almighty bloody power, they don't charge, the only DLC that comes out will be a piece of crap, half arsed costume pack or something.

Making people who try and take advantage of cheaper used game sales where the developer/publisher sees absolutely no profit is extortion? You blame them for wanting to make some actual money? PC games have come with CD-keys for online play for a good 15 years now... and no one has complained. As soon as it happens to consoles its "extortion" for wanting to give people more incentive to buy new. Odd...

"Console" gaming died with the N64. Now all we have is gimped PC's. I see no problems with this (given how I am a PC gamer as well as a console gamer, and have been happy using CD-keys and buying new for at least a decade now). At least they are only charging you $10 to access the online stuff... PC developers/publishers would make you pay the entire retail price for a new key, and in many cases, you couldn't even play single-player without a legit key. Feel lucky its only $10 for online content.

Please use the search function, there's already a thread about this

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=27313271

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="Andrew_Xavier"]

Thanks to these **** THQ and several other companies have adopted this policy. I was looking forward to UFC unleashed 2010, but I cancelled it because of this. I've cancelled all my EA pre-orders too, of which I had 6. I'm not buying from a company pulling this, we should all vote with our wallets, and not.

djsundowner

If you were planning on getting UFC 2010 new, why would you care about this issue? The only people who have to pay are those who bought it used.

Actually, THQ made it mandatory for anyone who owns UFC 2010 to pay five bucks to get the online modes. I just bought it new for both consoles because I own a game center, and when I put in the 360 version it said there was DLC available. I went to see what it was and it was "online features" with a price of 400 Microsoft points. I was like WTF? I just paid SIXTY DOLLARS for a brand new copy, and now I have to pay another fivejust to play online? The EA way I kind of understand, but this is straight-up extortion.

There's a code on the back of your booklet that gives you the mode for free. The DLC is up on XBL and the PSN but only people without the code (used buyers) have to purchase it. The code will only work on one account however.

"Console" gaming died with the N64. Now all we have is gimped PC's.

foxhound_fox

The PS2 was a PC. I never knew this until now.

I concur this system sure stunts a lot of players out there that might not purchase a game new, but would second hand. In the end, I think that only harms the company in the long run.Daavpuke

But it costs EA millions to keep those servers up and running!:o

This is my first post on Gamespot. I am usually content to merely lurk and take in the conversation, but this issue has compelled me to speak out. Folks, this is only the beginning. I hate to say "I told you so," but frankly I've seen this coming every since DLC became the big thing. I may sound like an alarmist, but I foresee days when you only get a "Basic" copy of the game for your ~$60. Accessing more than the bare bones of the game would require DLC, which of course would be priced at a premium. Like I said, maybe it doesn't seem plausible, but if the corporations see they can make a buck doing this, they will. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope so. But in the end, the only 100% certain way to keep it from happening is to vote with your wallet, as someone else said upthread.

[QUOTE="Daavpuke"]I concur this system sure stunts a lot of players out there that might not purchase a game new, but would second hand. In the end, I think that only harms the company in the long run.QuistisTrepe_

But it costs EA millions to keep those servers up and running!:o

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="Daavpuke"]I concur this system sure stunts a lot of players out there that might not purchase a game new, but would second hand. In the end, I think that only harms the company in the long run.Daavpuke

But it costs EA millions to keep those servers up and running!:o

I think EA is just plain scum. Console gaming is turning into one big nickel and diming operation.

[QUOTE="Andrew_Xavier"]

Thanks to these **** THQ and several other companies have adopted this policy. I was looking forward to UFC unleashed 2010, but I cancelled it because of this. I've cancelled all my EA pre-orders too, of which I had 6. I'm not buying from a company pulling this, we should all vote with our wallets, and not.

Grammaton-Cleric

If you were planning on getting UFC 2010 new, why would you care about this issue? The only people who have to pay are those who bought it used.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="Andrew_Xavier"]

Thanks to these **** THQ and several other companies have adopted this policy. I was looking forward to UFC unleashed 2010, but I cancelled it because of this. I've cancelled all my EA pre-orders too, of which I had 6. I'm not buying from a company pulling this, we should all vote with our wallets, and not.

djsundowner

If you were planning on getting UFC 2010 new, why would you care about this issue? The only people who have to pay are those who bought it used.

Actually, THQ made it mandatory for anyone who owns UFC 2010 to pay five bucks to get the online modes. I just bought it new for both consoles because I own a game center, and when I put in the 360 version it said there was DLC available. I went to see what it was and it was "online features" with a price of 400 Microsoft points. I was like WTF? I just paid SIXTY DOLLARS for a brand new copy, and now I have to pay another fivejust to play online? The EA way I kind of understand, but this is straight-up extortion.

You own a game center but aren't aware that the code for online play is on the back of the manual? hmmm... Anyway, Im going to be the devils advocate here because I see a lot of blanket statements that "this is extortion" and "this hurts the game industry" but not one fleshed out arguement as to the "how."

First, let me state that I primarily play PC games and purchase through steam...but I have all three consoles i share time on. Of all the games i buy i either wait for price drop or buy used if it is only a single player experience. If it is multiplayer, which most of my PC play involves, then i will buy new on release day.

Now, i like buying console games used and keep a list of games that I want to play. I have paiteince and can hold out for cheap used or price drop games. But lets be honest, in a single player experience, is there any difference in the experience that someone had two years ago versus the experience you had when you bought it? No. Games are not like the rake that you buy at the hardware store. You buy a console game used and it is exact same experience because nothing has degraded. Even wear and tear is typically convered at Gamestop for the first 30 days.

Now, lets talk look at UFC 2010 or Tiger Woods 2011. From my perspective, the online play is a major part of it. I only play single player long enough in sport games to learn the game before i go online. For all the naysayers, how is your experience different if you buy a used game to go online and play versus the guy that bought it 3 months prior in new condition to play online? Is $10 really to much to play for hours and hours of play time? I invite people to respond to this honestly and with points on how this really is extortion or hurting the game industry because maybe there is something im missing.

I like deals as much as anyone else. But i also recognize that someone put a lot of blood sweat and tears into creating an experience for me to either enjoy or dislike. It is sad to see all the piracy in the gaming industry. Companies are not shying away from production of good PC games if it doesnt involve online play.

[QUOTE="Daavpuke"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

But it costs EA millions to keep those servers up and running!:o

QuistisTrepe_

I think EA is just plain scum. Console gaming is turning into one big nickel and diming operation.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="Andrew_Xavier"]

Thanks to these **** THQ and several other companies have adopted this policy. I was looking forward to UFC unleashed 2010, but I cancelled it because of this. I've cancelled all my EA pre-orders too, of which I had 6. I'm not buying from a company pulling this, we should all vote with our wallets, and not.

Andrew_Xavier

If you were planning on getting UFC 2010 new, why would you care about this issue? The only people who have to pay are those who bought it used.

People still do have the right to buy the game used. These publishers also have the right to sell a product the way they want.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="Andrew_Xavier"]

Thanks to these **** THQ and several other companies have adopted this policy. I was looking forward to UFC unleashed 2010, but I cancelled it because of this. I've cancelled all my EA pre-orders too, of which I had 6. I'm not buying from a company pulling this, we should all vote with our wallets, and not.

Andrew_Xavier

If you were planning on getting UFC 2010 new, why would you care about this issue? The only people who have to pay are those who bought it used.

If the issue of one of ethics shouldn't the developer and the publisher get money for every copy of their game sold? I mean, selling a copy to your friend or on eBay is one thing but this online code issue is in direct response to companies like GameStop that have predicated much of their business model on selling used games for a meaty profit, none of which ever goes back into the pockets of developers or publishers. Shouldn't the people who work long hours to make these games reap the majority of the profits and at the very least receive some sort of compensation when these used games are sold?

Also, there is no extortion going on here. It's a business model and a not entirely unreasonable one at that. I'm not saying I fully agree with the model but I do understand why more publishers and developers might opt to utilize it in the coming years to protect their own interests, which is hardly unreasonable.

[QUOTE="djsundowner"]

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

If you were planning on getting UFC 2010 new, why would you care about this issue? The only people who have to pay are those who bought it used.

aermeus

Actually, THQ made it mandatory for anyone who owns UFC 2010 to pay five bucks to get the online modes. I just bought it new for both consoles because I own a game center, and when I put in the 360 version it said there was DLC available. I went to see what it was and it was "online features" with a price of 400 Microsoft points. I was like WTF? I just paid SIXTY DOLLARS for a brand new copy, and now I have to pay another fivejust to play online? The EA way I kind of understand, but this is straight-up extortion.

You own a game center but aren't aware that the code for online play is on the back of the manual? hmmm... Anyway, Im going to be the devils advocate here because I see a lot of blanket statements that "this is extortion" and "this hurts the game industry" but not one fleshed out arguement as to the "how."

First, let me state that I primarily play PC games and purchase through steam...but I have all three consoles i share time on. Of all the games i buy i either wait for price drop or buy used if it is only a single player experience. If it is multiplayer, which most of my PC play involves, then i will buy new on release day.

Now, i like buying console games used and keep a list of games that I want to play. I have paiteince and can hold out for cheap used or price drop games. But lets be honest, in a single player experience, is there any difference in the experience that someone had two years ago versus the experience you had when you bought it? No. Games are not like the rake that you buy at the hardware store. You buy a console game used and it is exact same experience because nothing has degraded. Even wear and tear is typically convered at Gamestop for the first 30 days.

Now, lets talk look at UFC 2010 or Tiger Woods 2011. From my perspective, the online play is a major part of it. I only play single player long enough in sport games to learn the game before i go online. For all the naysayers, how is your experience different if you buy a used game to go online and play versus the guy that bought it 3 months prior in new condition to play online? Is $10 really to much to play for hours and hours of play time? I invite people to respond to this honestly and with points on how this really is extortion or hurting the game industry because maybe there is something im missing.

I like deals as much as anyone else. But i also recognize that someone put a lot of blood sweat and tears into creating an experience for me to either enjoy or dislike. It is sad to see all the piracy in the gaming industry. Companies are not shying away from production of good PC games if it doesnt involve online play.

There was a code that came with the game for the four additional fighters. It was on a separate piece of paper. Every code that I have ever gotten out of a game box has been on a separate piece of paper. I don't look at the manuals for games that I have no interest in playing myself, and I file all the booklets away in the back room.I am happy to know that the game did come with a code, however.

The real problem I have with EAs policy as a center operator is that if I buy 8 copies of Madden, I only have enough codes to make 8 of my 28 Xboxes capable of online play. If you're buying one copy for one console, it really just becomes a wash between buying it new with the code or used without the code. The one possible true benefit of this, however, is that companies have no excuse to skimp on online features or they'll never end up making any money because nobody will pay for lackluster online. When you look at what EA has done this generation with their sports games, they really have upped the ante. Its not just exhibitions online anymore; there's leagues, tournaments, challenges... those innovations are great and hopefully they use the extra money to keep innovating.

[QUOTE="Andrew_Xavier"][QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

If you were planning on getting UFC 2010 new, why would you care about this issue? The only people who have to pay are those who bought it used.

Grammaton-Cleric

If the issue of one of ethics shouldn't the developer and the publisher get money for every copy of their game sold? I mean, selling a copy to your friend or on eBay is one thing but this online code issue is in direct response to companies like GameStop that have predicated much of their business model on selling used games for a meaty profit, none of which ever goes back into the pockets of developers or publishers. Shouldn't the people who work long hours to make these games reap the majority of the profits and at the very least receive some sort of compensation when these used games are sold?

Also, there is no extortion going on here. It's a business model and a not entirely unreasonable one at that. I'm not saying I fully agree with the model but I do understand why more publishers and developers might opt to utilize it in the coming years to protect their own interests, which is hardly unreasonable.

Should furniture makers get a portion of any used furniture sales; should Sony, MS, Nintendo get a portion of used console sales? See where I'm going here? This is a case of greed (not extortion), or to put it in kinder words maximizing shareholder wealth. There's is nothing wrong with it , however, do I like it or want it to become the norm, **** no!

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="Andrew_Xavier"] It's called being principled. I don't buy games used, BUT people should have the right to, this double charging crap is corporate extortion and I will not vote in favour of it with my wallet.killeer2007

If the issue of one of ethics shouldn't the developer and the publisher get money for every copy of their game sold? I mean, selling a copy to your friend or on eBay is one thing but this online code issue is in direct response to companies like GameStop that have predicated much of their business model on selling used games for a meaty profit, none of which ever goes back into the pockets of developers or publishers. Shouldn't the people who work long hours to make these games reap the majority of the profits and at the very least receive some sort of compensation when these used games are sold?

Also, there is no extortion going on here. It's a business model and a not entirely unreasonable one at that. I'm not saying I fully agree with the model but I do understand why more publishers and developers might opt to utilize it in the coming years to protect their own interests, which is hardly unreasonable.

Should furniture makers get a portion of any used furniture sales; should Sony, MS, Nintendo get a portion of used console sales? See where I'm going here? This is a case of greed (not extortion), or to put it in kinder word maximizing shareholder wealth. There's is nothing wrong with it , however, do I like it or want it to become the norm, **** no!

Used furniture doesn't need to be constantly supported, online gaming does. It takes money to keep those servers up and running. Granted, part of the revenue generated on the sale of each copy should go towards maintaining servers and the like, but the used game market gives some games a longer life span and while the compnay did have enough money to keep everything up-to-date for the original purchasers of the game, those who pick it up used later extend the amount of time the servers need to be running... I dunno, that's probably a semi-weak arguement the more I look at it, but it's at least semi-viable...

Should furniture makers get a portion of any used furniture sales; should Sony, MS, Nintendo get a portion of used console sales? See where I'm going here? This is a case of greed (not extortion), or to put it in kinder words maximizing shareholder wealth. There's is nothing wrong with it , however, do I like it or want it to become the norm, **** no!

killeer2007

Your furniture analogy falters because the production and revenue models for furniture and games couldn't be more disparate.

To design a game generally takes millions of dollars, meaning that money must be reclaimed before any type of profit can be generated. The cost of developing furniture is nowhere near that expensive. You also must take into account that there isn't a massive used furniture infrastructure that undercuts the new market as there is in gaming; the entire crux of the used game market lies in the fact that large retailers can buy used product cheaper than wholesale product from publishers and thus generate a heftier profit, essentially undercutting the developers and publishers with a clever but potentially damaging model that decreases potential revenue streams.

Software occupies completely different dimensions of ownership than something like furniture or even a vehicle. Things like music, literature, film and games are technically purchased by one person for private use. Generally, companies understand that people will sell their media or even give it away but now that we have a dedicated market in place to do this on a massive scale, there is the reality that such a model is harming the ability of some developers and publishers to maximize profit.

Again, I'm not asserting this code business is the definitive answer but I also wouldn't be so quick to call this move greedy or unreasonable when even respected developers are going on record criticizing the used game market.

It's a business model and a not entirely unreasonable one at that.

Grammaton-Cleric

My problem with this new revenue stream is that it can lead to something very unreasonable. Say if Microsoft required a reactivation fee for those who needed to reinstall the Windows OS? After all, imagine the cost to keep their servers up for those who need to download critical security updates. Got a virus on your machine? Hard drive died? Aw too bad. Pay us $150 to reactivate the legal product key that you already have. After all, malware infections and dead hardware aren't Microsoft's responsibility, right?

Crap like this is why I would like to see the scope of the Doctrine of First Sale broadened to curb potential consumer abuses like this. I just think things like what EA and Ubi Soft are doing are gateways to even more appalling artificial revenue streams.

Please use the search function, there's already a thread about this

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=27313271

killeer2007

And it likely would have been locked for bumping an old thread.

[QUOTE="Andrew_Xavier"][QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

If you were planning on getting UFC 2010 new, why would you care about this issue? The only people who have to pay are those who bought it used.

Grammaton-Cleric

If the issue of one of ethics shouldn't the developer and the publisher get money for every copy of their game sold? I mean, selling a copy to your friend or on eBay is one thing but this online code issue is in direct response to companies like GameStop that have predicated much of their business model on selling used games for a meaty profit, none of which ever goes back into the pockets of developers or publishers. Shouldn't the people who work long hours to make these games reap the majority of the profits and at the very least receive some sort of compensation when these used games are sold?

Also, there is no extortion going on here. It's a business model and a not entirely unreasonable one at that. I'm not saying I fully agree with the model but I do understand why more publishers and developers might opt to utilize it in the coming years to protect their own interests, which is hardly unreasonable.

Eh, you have to give incentive to make people not want to buy used. But once again this is just hurting the consumer. The person you are trying to get money from. I think gears did it best with putting the old map pack in there as a free code. Yeh you got it free if you bought new. If you bought used. You don't get it but you still get online. Give me and incentive to want to buy new. (I usually buy new but thats because I am a small collector :3 )

Eh, you have to give incentive to make people not want to buy used. But once again this is just hurting the consumer. The person you are trying to get money from. I think gears did it best with putting the old map pack in there as a free code. Yeh you got it free if you bought new. If you bought used. You don't get it but you still get online. Give me and incentive to want to buy new. (I usually buy new but thats because I am a small collector :3 )

Ravirr

Setting aside the fact that consumer incentive should be wanting to play and own the game, granting online access for new copies and charging a one time fee for used certainly qualifies as an incentive.

Personally, I've never understood the incentive of buying used. Most used games are only about five bucks cheaper and if those five bucks breaks a person then perhaps they should be focusing on other priorities to begin with. I buy new because like you I am a collector and the condition of most used discs is ridiculously poor.

I actually think developers and publishers have been pretty good about offering bonus content for preorders and new software purchases. I agree they should always look to sweeten the pot for those of us there on day one paying full price but personally, I don't buy new for perks so much as I buy new to control the quality of my collection and support the developers who make the games.

For me, quality is the only real incentive to buy.

As I've stated before, I personally have no problem with this. If this dissuades a couple people from buying EA games used, good for them.

If people have a strong moral objection to this, they can refuse to buy the game new. Honestly though, I'm sure this won't affect sales even a little bit. Just like every other game "boycott" it will result in unaffected or increased sales to the boycotted titles.

The PS2 was a PC. I never knew this until now.

QuistisTrepe_

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

It's a business model and a not entirely unreasonable one at that.

QuistisTrepe_

My problem with this new revenue stream is that it can lead to something very unreasonable. Say if Microsoft required a reactivation fee for those who needed to reinstall the Windows OS? After all, imagine the cost to keep their servers up for those who need to download critical security updates. Got a virus on your machine? Hard drive died? Aw too bad. Pay us $150 to reactivate the legal product key that you already have. After all, malware infections and dead hardware aren't Microsoft's responsibility, right?

Crap like this is why I would like to see the scope of the Doctrine of First Sale broadened to curb potential consumer abuses like this. I just think things like what EA and Ubi Soft are doing are gateways to even more appalling artificial revenue streams.

I can see your point but again, we have to compare actual revenue models before assuming one concession leads to another. Your Windows scenario, while certainly plausible, still isn't entirely applicable here because the revenue streams generated by the sales of Microsoft's operating systems is entirely different than the way physical media, specifically games, are trafficked. There isn't a massive secondary market for used operating systems where by sharp contrast you have companies whose entire sales model is founded upon used game sales. What I can speculate is that if a company sprung up that purchased and resold used software such as Windows, you would probably see such measures taken to ensure revenue stability. Otherwise, MS would have no reason to mess with such a dominant model that currently has their applications on 60-70% of all computers.

But see, that's the point here: we can't analogize because in most cases, there is no viable model to compare the game market to. The closest model we have would be film and its related media but the very nature of movies allows for multiple revenue streams not afforded to videogames. There has been a persistent used movie market for years but the generally affordable nature of DVDs coupled with the aforementioned revenue streams has ensured that such a market levies no real strain on the film industry as a whole.

What GameStop and other like-minded companies have done is create a model where eventually, they can get a massive percentage of their sales buy selling used software that automatically delivers a higher margin for profit while simultaneously cutting out the developers and publishers. It really is a unique situation and one that I don't think everybody has thoroughly considered in regards to these types of discussions.

Realistically, the videogame industry would be foolish to allow a secondary market to generate billions off their labors and not seek out a piece of that.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

The PS2 was a PC. I never knew this until now.

foxhound_fox

That would make it a game console with online capability. The HDD was an add-on that functioned as a external HDD. You couldn't even directly save to it iirc. Internet access and storage capacity do not a PC make.

[QUOTE="Ravirr"]

Eh, you have to give incentive to make people not want to buy used. But once again this is just hurting the consumer. The person you are trying to get money from. I think gears did it best with putting the old map pack in there as a free code. Yeh you got it free if you bought new. If you bought used. You don't get it but you still get online. Give me and incentive to want to buy new. (I usually buy new but thats because I am a small collector :3 )

Grammaton-Cleric

Setting aside the fact that consumer incentive should be wanting to play and own the game, granting online access for new copies and charging a one time fee for used certainly qualifies as an incentive.

Personally, I've never understood the incentive of buying used. Most used games are only about five bucks cheaper and if those five bucks breaks a person then perhaps they should be focusing on other priorities to begin with. I buy new because like you I am a collector and the condition of most used discs is ridiculously poor.

I actually think developers and publishers have been pretty good about offering bonus content for preorders and new software purchases. I agree they should always look to sweeten the pot for those of us there on day one paying full price but personally, I don't buy new for perks so much as I buy new to control the quality of my collection and support the developers who make the games.

For me, quality is the only real incentive to buy.

Well, everyone is different. I have bought a quite a few games because they came with an art book, or sound track. I mean most vg sound tracks go from 20-40 dollars online. I bought blazblue, death smiles, knights in the nightmare and record of the agrest war all because they came with soundtrack and other goodies. While quality is good incentive to buy, I just like the little thing that makes me want it immediatly. Something short lived that will be like hey buy this now and you get reward for being loyal and helping us out. Much like aksys's plan for new IP's as of lately. With blazblue they released a set amount of limited edition Blazblue which came with soundtrack and dvd character guide. Without charging more. Same with record of the agrest war, came with sexy pillow case, sexy mouse pad, and a soundtrack. 60$ is a lot to throw around these days but if you can make me justify it on a game that may not be perfect, then these little things will help sales. It just costs money which is what a lot of develpers don't want to do.

I personally think this business model will only hurt sales, as sharing with a friend can lead to a sale. But now they can't really test on the online unless at said friends house. I'm no business man so I can't say, if pre order goodies help or not. But I love em hahaha.

It really is a unique situation and one that I don't think everybody has thoroughly considered in regards to these types of discussions.

Realistically, the videogame industry would be foolish to allow a secondary market to generate billions off their labors and not seek out a piece of that.

Grammaton-Cleric

And this implies that the gaming companies haven't benefited handsomely from a global corporation like Gamestop which aggressively advertises their products. Gamestop uses the secondhard market in order to promote the newest upcoming titles that companies like EA and Ubi Soft have poured millions into. The pre-order process provides the data that is used by corporate retail buyers to place their orders to the publisher. Gamers show up on launch day with their wares to turn in for credit towards those new games that represent the investment made by the developer.The relationship is mutually beneficial.

(pardon me if this seems condescending, I'm laying it all out for the sake of avoiding ambiguity)

The developers are just trying to have their cake and it too. They can whine about the secondhand market all they want. They cannot deny how much they have reaped from the relationship and how much they need it to continue to exist.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

It really is a unique situation and one that I don't think everybody has thoroughly considered in regards to these types of discussions.

Realistically, the videogame industry would be foolish to allow a secondary market to generate billions off their labors and not seek out a piece of that.

QuistisTrepe_

And this implies that the gaming companies haven't benefited handsomely from a global corporation like Gamestop which aggressively advertises their products. Gamestop uses the secondhard market in order to promote the newest upcoming titles that companies like EA and Ubi Soft have poured millions into. The pre-order process provides the data that is used by corporate retail buyers to place their orders to the publisher. Gamers show up on launch day with their wares to turn in for credit towards those new games that represent the investment made by the developer.The relationship is mutually beneficial.

(pardon me if this seems condescending, I'm laying it all out for the sake of avoiding ambiguity)

The developers are just trying to have their cake and it too. They can whine about the secondhand market all they want. They cannot deny how much they have reaped from the relationship and how much they need it to continue to exist.

I agree with you that one of the benefits of the used game market is that it allows people to trade in older titles for newer games which in turn does bolster and fortify the new game market significantly and it's a fact I think is often glossed over by the publishers and developers crying foul.

However, that fact alone doesn't negate the affect the used game market is having on publishers, especially as GameStop continues to grow and thrive. The real question is how many sales are directly attributable to consumers trading in their older titles who might otherwise not be able to afford buying a game without that extra trade-in buffer? Truth be told, I have no idea, especially in our current economic crisis, but I'm sure it's sizeable.

That said, we are still operating in very unique and uncharted territory which is why I shy away from making any definitive proclamations on the matter. There are plenty of variables and some very solid arguments on both sides but ultimately, I buy new for the express purpose of supporting developers and their subsequent publishers and regardless of how you slice or spin it, the used game market affords the talented people who made the games we play nothing in regards to recompense.

shouldn't the developer and the publisher get money for every copy of their game sold?Grammaton-Cleric

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]shouldn't the developer and the publisher get money for every copy of their game sold?Andrew_Xavier

Nobody, including myself, is arguing that the used game market is breaking the law. What I continue to argue is that the used game market is a very unique paradigm that has no real precedent in other industries.

You erroneously parallel the automobile industry and use a flaccid break analogy, forgetting of course that once a car is built, all resources spent by the company making that car have been exhausted and no additional maintenance on their end is necessary. By contrast, maintaining online servers, functionality and stability does cost money and if a publisher plans to keep a game online indefinitely then those costs theoretically continue as well.

Your Blueray analogy is equally unpersuasive because in addition to the aforementioned costs of running and maintaining online functionality, films have multiple channels of revenue to recoup their budgets, not to mention that films do not have a massive, concerted secondary market consistently eroding their profits. Again, this used game construct cannot be compared to other industries because the model at work here is wholly unique.

Also, your assertion that it is "moronic" to condone this type of policy demonstrates how puerile your own assessment of the situation actually is, along with your tenuous grip of the subsequent complexities that make this debate much more nuanced than you clearly grasp. Your citation of the First Sale Doctrine is completely irrelevant because the debate has never been about legality and your own assessment of the law, claiming that the IP owner surrenders "all rights", is flatly wrong. As a point of fact, the First Sale Doctrine law is very specific about what consumer rights are protected and those rights are limited to the resale, rental or lending of copyrighted merchandise. Surrendering all rights would mean once a person buys a movie or a game they would have the legal right to replicate or even distribute it.

Lastly, your claim that "people purchasing these new products are the death of the industry" is nothing but ridiculous and hyperbolic conjecture founded on nothing even remotely substantial. I challenge you to demonstrate in a logical fashion how this model will decimate the industry, especially when you consider this policy is actually a direct response to lost revenue from the sale of used games. People like me who buy only new are the lifeblood of the industry and better yet, because we purchase new, none of this online code crap affects us, generally speaking.

Personally, I'm not convinced this online code model is the best course of action but that doesn't mean I'm unsympathetic to the companies and people who make these games and are being circumvented in regards to profits from a massive used game market. It's precisely because I keep myself informed and care about this industry that I don't engage in knee-jerk reactionary prattle but rather strive for some sort of equilibrium so as to not completely dismiss either position because in all sincerity, both sides carry some serious weight.

I think this will have some effect on EA. Maybe not as much as we'd like, but I do see them losing a few sales.

Or maybe game stores will drop the price enough to compensate for the additional fee.

[QUOTE="killeer2007"]

Should furniture makers get a portion of any used furniture sales; should Sony, MS, Nintendo get a portion of used console sales? See where I'm going here? This is a case of greed (not extortion), or to put it in kinder words maximizing shareholder wealth. There's is nothing wrong with it , however, do I like it or want it to become the norm, **** no!

Grammaton-Cleric

Your furniture analogy falters because the production and revenue models for furniture and games couldn't be more disparate.

To design a game generally takes millions of dollars, meaning that money must be reclaimed before any type of profit can be generated. The cost of developing furniture is nowhere near that expensive. You also must take into account that there isn't a massive used furniture infrastructure that undercuts the new market as there is in gaming; the entire crux of the used game market lies in the fact that large retailers can buy used product cheaper than wholesale product from publishers and thus generate a heftier profit, essentially undercutting the developers and publishers with a clever but potentially damaging model that decreases potential revenue streams.

Software occupies completely different dimensions of ownership than something like furniture or even a vehicle. Things like music, literature, film and games are technically purchased by one person for private use. Generally, companies understand that people will sell their media or even give it away but now that we have a dedicated market in place to do this on a massive scale, there is the reality that such a model is harming the ability of some developers and publishers to maximize profit.

Again, I'm not asserting this code business is the definitive answer but I also wouldn't be so quick to call this move greedy or unreasonable when even respected developers are going on record criticizing the used game market.

But I don't see any one complaining about the poor car companies losing out of proffit when some one buys a used car...

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="killeer2007"]

Should furniture makers get a portion of any used furniture sales; should Sony, MS, Nintendo get a portion of used console sales? See where I'm going here? This is a case of greed (not extortion), or to put it in kinder words maximizing shareholder wealth. There's is nothing wrong with it , however, do I like it or want it to become the norm, **** no!

BuryMe

Your furniture analogy falters because the production and revenue models for furniture and games couldn't be more disparate.

To design a game generally takes millions of dollars, meaning that money must be reclaimed before any type of profit can be generated. The cost of developing furniture is nowhere near that expensive. You also must take into account that there isn't a massive used furniture infrastructure that undercuts the new market as there is in gaming; the entire crux of the used game market lies in the fact that large retailers can buy used product cheaper than wholesale product from publishers and thus generate a heftier profit, essentially undercutting the developers and publishers with a clever but potentially damaging model that decreases potential revenue streams.

Software occupies completely different dimensions of ownership than something like furniture or even a vehicle. Things like music, literature, film and games are technically purchased by one person for private use. Generally, companies understand that people will sell their media or even give it away but now that we have a dedicated market in place to do this on a massive scale, there is the reality that such a model is harming the ability of some developers and publishers to maximize profit.

Again, I'm not asserting this code business is the definitive answer but I also wouldn't be so quick to call this move greedy or unreasonable when even respected developers are going on record criticizing the used game market.

But I don't see any one complaining about the poor car companies losing out of proffit when some one buys a used car...

As I stated in another post, the car analogy is also not entirely applicable because once a car is built there is no further contribution necessary from the company where by contrast a company that makes a game offering online functionality must maintain that construct, which costs money.

Also, the profit margin for cars is quite large, even when considering the budget and R&D necessary to design and mass produce a motor vehicle. Cars are sold at a premium price because a car should hypothetically last for many years. A videogame is a 50-60 dollar transaction thus the profit model operates at an entirely different level.

That isn't to say I entirely dismiss the parallel because there is some validity to the notion but again, we are discussing very disparate industries. Between rampant piracy and the used game market, there are some serious breaches in the revenue structure of this industry not present in others. Copyrighted media has always been treated differently than other goods and while I am a staunch defender of consumer rights I still believe the issue of used games is one that could potentially harm developers and publishers, especially the smaller studios struggling to make a profit.

I challenge you to demonstrate in a logical fashion how this model will decimate the industry, especially when you consider this policy is actually a direct response to lost revenue from the sale of used games. People like me who buy only new are the lifeblood of the industry and better yet, because we purchase new, none of this online code crap affects us, generally speaking.Grammaton-Cleric

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"] I challenge you to demonstrate in a logical fashion how this model will decimate the industry, especially when you consider this policy is actually a direct response to lost revenue from the sale of used games. People like me who buy only new are the lifeblood of the industry and better yet, because we purchase new, none of this online code crap affects us, generally speaking.Andrew_Xavier

You keep tossing around terms like "incomplete product" but what you fail to grasp is THQ and EA are not selling anything incomplete. When you buy their game new, you get everything entitled to the purchaser for no additional cost. It is only when somebody opts to purchase used product that they are levied a fee to access multiplayer/online functionality. It may not be a perfect model but it hardly constitutes an incomplete game and it certainly doesn't equate to double charges. Again, these products are meant to be sold as new and since the developers and publishers have no control over the used market, they are simply placing a premium on content that technically costs them money to maintain.

I also take issue with the notion that most entertainment media purchases such as games are predicated by resale value given how low said value is on most software to begin with. Even assuming there was some merit to your theory that people are not going to buy such games because they fear declining resale value, that assumes most people are informed about this new model and I would assert that is highly unlikely outside of hardcore enthusiasts who frequent gaming boards or read industry periodicals. Again, your automobile analogy is worthless because a car is an item worth thousands of dollars which lasts for years and often requires financing; a videogame is a purchase of 20-60 dollars with a person maybe recouping 40% of that value if they trade the game back in during the first few weeks after their initial purchase. The rapid depreciation of software alone makes comparing it to automobiles pointless and also goes a considerable way to dismantling your notion that software sales are driven by consumer confidence in resale value. The resale value of games is already very low thus this five or ten dollar differential will barely register, especially if GameStop decides to include codes automatically in their used software. (A very real possibility)

Honestly, you've offered no actual evidence to support your claims thus far. UFC 2010 has only been out for a couple of weeks and it was released on the tail end of one of the busiest and most front loaded 1st quarters on record so as of now there is no correlation you can cite as proof that sales are soft or have been directly affected by the inclusion of this new model. As to the Craigslist example, I've seen plenty of new software in the past going for similar prices on places like Amazon and EBay so again, such listings and prices are proof of nothing.

As to the notion that I shredded the First Sale Doctrine, if by shredded you mean interpret correctly, guilty as charged. Your claim that you have a right to sell a complete product is nonsense and backed up by nothing either explicitly stated in the law or inferred thereafter. The online content used buyers are being charged for is something that requires maintenance and therefore additional resources are necessary to keep it afloat, meaning that companies that offer such a construct have every right to omit that feature from a used copy or charge for it. You seem very big on your rights but understand one thing: the IP holders have their own set of rights and for good reason.

And perhaps you are correct, people will reject this model and truth be told, that wouldn't bother me at all. However, what you must understand is that it is unlikely that developers and publishers are merely going to sit back and allow the used game market to generate billions on their backs without getting some sort of compensation, which isn't entirely unreasonable either.

And I voted twice with my wallet: once for Red Dead Redemption and once for UFC 2010. Both are excellent games and both sets of developers and publishers deserve every penny they make. Again, people like me are the lifeblood because we value the individuals and companies who make these games and ensure they get their fair financial due. If anybody will bring this industry down, its people who screw developers out of their royalties to save a few bucks buying used and even if you are correct and the industry nosedives because of this new model, I and others like me still share no blame because we continue to directly support the industry.

[QUOTE="Daavpuke"]I concur this system sure stunts a lot of players out there that might not purchase a game new, but would second hand. In the end, I think that only harms the company in the long run.QuistisTrepe_

But it costs EA millions to keep those servers up and running!:o

Sorry for the late reply. For the 2009 fiscal year EA made a a profit of 4.212 BILLION dollars. Billion, not million. That's a 15% increase for the 2008 fiscal year. I hardly think they're going to have to spend too much to keep the servers up

[QUOTE="killeer2007"]

Should furniture makers get a portion of any used furniture sales; should Sony, MS, Nintendo get a portion of used console sales? See where I'm going here? This is a case of greed (not extortion), or to put it in kinder words maximizing shareholder wealth. There's is nothing wrong with it , however, do I like it or want it to become the norm, **** no!

Grammaton-Cleric

Your furniture analogy falters because the production and revenue models for furniture and games couldn't be more disparate.

To design a game generally takes millions of dollars, meaning that money must be reclaimed before any type of profit can be generated. The cost of developing furniture is nowhere near that expensive. You also must take into account that there isn't a massive used furniture infrastructure that undercuts the new market as there is in gaming; the entire crux of the used game market lies in the fact that large retailers can buy used product cheaper than wholesale product from publishers and thus generate a heftier profit, essentially undercutting the developers and publishers with a clever but potentially damaging model that decreases potential revenue streams.

Software occupies completely different dimensions of ownership than something like furniture or even a vehicle. Things like music, literature, film and games are technically purchased by one person for private use. Generally, companies understand that people will sell their media or even give it away but now that we have a dedicated market in place to do this on a massive scale, there is the reality that such a model is harming the ability of some developers and publishers to maximize profit.

Again, I'm not asserting this code business is the definitive answer but I also wouldn't be so quick to call this move greedy or unreasonable when even respected developers are going on record criticizing the used game market.