EA's Peter Moore: It was all Microsoft. Not us! We like used games!

If third party games like The Witcher, Mirror's Edge, Battlefield, Assasin's Creed, Mirror's Edge  have no restrictions on PS4, have used games value, people can sell it and share it to each other win no freaking restrictions, and this isn't the case on X1...MS you are freaking idiots!

I thought this interview was a great piece in journalistic integrity. The interviewer got him to squirm. This is the first interview for Moore after the GameTrailers interview and he was pretty comfortable, here not so much.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/11/442...and-used-games

The Cboat confirmation question on Microsoft pursued this DRM.

Polygon: The narrative I've heard is that EA lobbied hard to have the hardware companies come up with a solution so you guys are not faffing around with online passes and you're not losing potential used game profits to retailers.

Moore: "Absolutely incorrect. As the guy who is the chief operating officer of Electronic Arts I can tell you that EA did not aggressively lobby for the platform holders to put some gating function in there to allow or disallow used games. I am on record as being a proponent of used games. I like the ecosystem. I like the fact that it's kept pricing at a good level for eight years. I like the fact that someone can buy a physical game and see some equity in that game. That keeps GameStop vibrant and they are a great launch and marketing partner for us.

"EA has never had a conversation, and I have been present at all of them, with all of the manufacturers, saying you must put a system in place that allows us to take a piece of the action or even stop it. Absolutely incorrect."

We have the COO of the #1 publisher in the world going on record stating he thinks its fair for gamers to have equity in the their games! So do we!

PS: Love ya Peter. You're still the man!

I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of EA's mouth if my life depended on it.  They got rid of online passes.  Why?  Because they knew MS was heavily restricting and imposing limitations that would not necessitate them.  Now, Sony having come out and said what they did, they're going on record as the good guys.  What a load of malarky.

Btw, you once posted that you found a work around to get these forums working?  Like copy and pasting the link into notepad or something?  What was your advice again, these boards are intolerable.

I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of EA's mouth if my life depended on it.  They got rid of online passes.  Why?  Because they knew MS was heavily restricting and imposing limitations that would not necessitate them.  Now, Sony having come out and said what they did, they're going on record as the good guys.  What a load of malarky.

Btw, you once posted that you found a work around to get these forums working?  Like copy and pasting the link into notepad or something?  What was your advice again, these boards are intolerable.

MirkoS77

Even if you don't, it's clear MS pushed for this the hardest. And maybe EA changed their mind after the backlash. Either way for Peter Moore to go on record and make this statement is damning evidence for MS.

PS: My workaround was simple to save your link to the thread and paste it and then refresh the page. That was only good for one thread like the E3 thread though. Not practical for all threads and not sure if it works for the Primary Games forum itself. It's the same for me. One minute it's from June 7, then after a zillion tries it's back to normal.

I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of EA's mouth if my life depended on it.  They got rid of online passes.  Why?  Because they knew MS was heavily restricting and imposing limitations that would not necessitate them.  Now, Sony having come out and said what they did, they're going on record as the good guys.  What a load of malarky.

Btw, you once posted that you found a work around to get these forums working?  Like copy and pasting the link into notepad or something?  What was your advice again, these boards are intolerable.

MirkoS77

.

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of EA's mouth if my life depended on it.  They got rid of online passes.  Why?  Because they knew MS was heavily restricting and imposing limitations that would not necessitate them.  Now, Sony having come out and said what they did, they're going on record as the good guys.  What a load of malarky.

Btw, you once posted that you found a work around to get these forums working?  Like copy and pasting the link into notepad or something?  What was your advice again, these boards are intolerable.

alexwatchtower

Even if you don't, it's clear MS pushed for this the hardest. And maybe EA changed their mind after the backlash. Either way for Peter Moore to go on record and make this statement is damning evidence for MS.

 PS: My workaround was simple to save your link to the thread and paste it and then refresh the page. That was only good for one thread like the E3 thread though. Not practical for all threads and not sure if it works for the Primary Games forum itself. It's the same for me. One minute it's from June 7, then after a zillion tries it's back to normal.

Anyhow, I'm certain that publishers such as EA, Ubi, and Activision were in talks and had direct influence on the 360's new policies.  They had to. 24 check-in is to help stem piracy which they hate, and restrictions on people being able to sell/buy used, which they want.  I don't see MS getting nearly as many benefits as opposed to the publishers.  EA is covering its own ass and trying to fade quietly into the background.  It's good PR but I can't take it at face value.

EA did not aggressively lobby for the platform holders to put some gating function in there to allow or disallow used games.EA

[QUOTE="alexwatchtower"]

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of EA's mouth if my life depended on it.  They got rid of online passes.  Why?  Because they knew MS was heavily restricting and imposing limitations that would not necessitate them.  Now, Sony having come out and said what they did, they're going on record as the good guys.  What a load of malarky.

Btw, you once posted that you found a work around to get these forums working?  Like copy and pasting the link into notepad or something?  What was your advice again, these boards are intolerable.

MirkoS77

Even if you don't, it's clear MS pushed for this the hardest. And maybe EA changed their mind after the backlash. Either way for Peter Moore to go on record and make this statement is damning evidence for MS.

 PS: My workaround was simple to save your link to the thread and paste it and then refresh the page. That was only good for one thread like the E3 thread though. Not practical for all threads and not sure if it works for the Primary Games forum itself. It's the same for me. One minute it's from June 7, then after a zillion tries it's back to normal.

Anyhow, I'm certain that publishers such as EA, Ubi, and Activision were in talks and had direct influence on the 360's new policies.  They had to. 24 check-in is to help stem piracy which they hate, and restrictions on people being able to sell/buy used, which they want.  I don't see MS getting nearly as many benefits as opposed to the publishers.  EA is covering its own ass and trying to fade quietly into the background.  It's good PR but I can't take it at face value.

Maybe they did, but it's clear they're pulling a reversal now. GOOD! Isn't that what we want? To know gamers can have some sort of power rather than feeling hopeless?

24-hour checkings pretty much destroys piracy, but it also destroys our freedom. Screw that, that's part of doing business in this industry.

"Hey daddy Microsoft, can I play my game today?"

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of EA's mouth if my life depended on it.  They got rid of online passes.  Why?  Because they knew MS was heavily restricting and imposing limitations that would not necessitate them.  Now, Sony having come out and said what they did, they're going on record as the good guys.  What a load of malarky.

Btw, you once posted that you found a work around to get these forums working?  Like copy and pasting the link into notepad or something?  What was your advice again, these boards are intolerable.

ThaneKrios28

I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of EA's mouth if my life depended on it.  They got rid of online passes.  Why?  Because they knew MS was heavily restricting and imposing limitations that would not necessitate them.  Now, Sony having come out and said what they did, they're going on record as the good guys.  What a load of malarky.

Btw, you once posted that you found a work around to get these forums working?  Like copy and pasting the link into notepad or something?  What was your advice again, these boards are intolerable.

MirkoS77

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

[QUOTE="alexwatchtower"]

Even if you don't, it's clear MS pushed for this the hardest. And maybe EA changed their mind after the backlash. Either way for Peter Moore to go on record and make this statement is damning evidence for MS.

 PS: My workaround was simple to save your link to the thread and paste it and then refresh the page. That was only good for one thread like the E3 thread though. Not practical for all threads and not sure if it works for the Primary Games forum itself. It's the same for me. One minute it's from June 7, then after a zillion tries it's back to normal.

alexwatchtower

Anyhow, I'm certain that publishers such as EA, Ubi, and Activision were in talks and had direct influence on the 360's new policies.  They had to. 24 check-in is to help stem piracy which they hate, and restrictions on people being able to sell/buy used, which they want.  I don't see MS getting nearly as many benefits as opposed to the publishers.  EA is covering its own ass and trying to fade quietly into the background.  It's good PR but I can't take it at face value.

Maybe they did, but it's clear they're pulling a reversal now. GOOD! Isn't that what we want? To know gamers can have some sort of power rather than feeling hopeless?

As I said before, now that the idea is exploding, all the publishers who were silent about it are now going to try to attain minimum safe distance from teh shlt bomb. Can't have spatters on all those expensive suits, after all. 

Peter Moore's silence during the lead up to the PS4 announcement tells me all I need to know. Why didn't he come out and say this shlt sooner? The ones who are really going to get scarlet lettered are those who jumped into exclusivity arrangements with Microsoft's Xbone. I'd be reaaaaally worried if I were those guys.

Incidentally, it is so refreshing to see the corpse that is the gaming journalism community wake up and start asking questions that help the little guys in the equation: the customer. It's sure not a complete fix, but goddamn, they seem to be growing some juevos, even if the tiniest little set. 

I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of EA's mouth if my life depended on it.  They got rid of online passes.  Why?  Because they knew MS was heavily restricting and imposing limitations that would not necessitate them.  Now, Sony having come out and said what they did, they're going on record as the good guys.  What a load of malarky

MirkoS77

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of EA's mouth if my life depended on it.  They got rid of online passes.  Why?  Because they knew MS was heavily restricting and imposing limitations that would not necessitate them.  Now, Sony having come out and said what they did, they're going on record as the good guys.  What a load of malarky

capaho

[QUOTE="capaho"][QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of EA's mouth if my life depended on it.  They got rid of online passes.  Why?  Because they knew MS was heavily restricting and imposing limitations that would not necessitate them.  Now, Sony having come out and said what they did, they're going on record as the good guys.  What a load of malarky

MirkoS77

I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of EA's mouth if my life depended on it.  They got rid of online passes.  Why?  Because they knew MS was heavily restricting and imposing limitations that would not necessitate them.  Now, Sony having come out and said what they did, they're going on record as the good guys.  What a load of malarky.

Btw, you once posted that you found a work around to get these forums working?  Like copy and pasting the link into notepad or something?  What was your advice again, these boards are intolerable.

MirkoS77

It's kind of funny watching Peter Moore throw MS under the bus, but still, wow @ $50mil for Titanfall exclusivity, not sure if EA is going to keep it exclusive for long.

It's kind of funny watching Peter Moore throw MS under the bus, but still, wow @ $50mil for Titanfall exclusivity, not sure if EA is going to keep it exclusive for long.

EvilTaru

There's rumors from GAF "inside sources"  it's a 1 year time exclusive. And there was an article that says the developers would love to put it on every console. It's EA so I wouldn't be surprized. 

I'm calling BS on Moore.  I bet EA pushed hard for it.  But now that they have said this, MS should say "okay fine, we are dropping that feature" and watch the heads at EA explode.

I'm calling BS on Moore.  I bet EA pushed hard for it.  But now that they have said this, MS should say "okay fine, we are dropping that feature" and watch the heads at EA explode.

s0ldier69

I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of EA's mouth if my life depended on it.  They got rid of online passes.  Why?  Because they knew MS was heavily restricting and imposing limitations that would not necessitate them.  Now, Sony having come out and said what they did, they're going on record as the good guys.  What a load of malarky.

Btw, you once posted that you found a work around to get these forums working?  Like copy and pasting the link into notepad or something?  What was your advice again, these boards are intolerable.

MirkoS77

It's kind of funny watching Peter Moore throw MS under the bus, but still, wow @ $50mil for Titanfall exclusivity, not sure if EA is going to keep it exclusive for long.

EvilTaru

Just 1 year I think.

Well hot dang it all.

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of EA's mouth if my life depended on it.  They got rid of online passes.  Why?  Because they knew MS was heavily restricting and imposing limitations that would not necessitate them.  Now, Sony having come out and said what they did, they're going on record as the good guys.  What a load of malarky.

Btw, you once posted that you found a work around to get these forums working?  Like copy and pasting the link into notepad or something?  What was your advice again, these boards are intolerable.

MrGeezer

My guess - EA probably realized that online passes really weren't gaining them that much, and whatever PR goodwill could be gained from dropping online passes might be more valuable to them.

[QUOTE="EvilTaru"]

It's kind of funny watching Peter Moore throw MS under the bus, but still, wow @ $50mil for Titanfall exclusivity, not sure if EA is going to keep it exclusive for long.

F1Lengend

if you figure that a publisher takes away about $16-18 in revenue per unit sold (based on what I could find on the internet about the publisher's slice of the $60 price tag of a current gen game), then MS just bought around 2.7 - 3.1 million units of Titanfall to keep it exclusive. For one year on brand new consoles that will inevitably have a limited user base within that first year, it sounds like a good deal for EA. But that's assuming one year. If it's longer than that, the deal doesn't seem so good. EA's got to have sales expectations for this game at twice that.

I call BS as well, but let's not pretend (all) corporate heads are blind to their audience.

They saw how people responded to Sony not implementing any DRM and how they're being heralded as a company standing up for consumer rights and they want to seem like the good guys too. In fact, it's probably not out of line to say Sony simply did that because they saw the backlash Microsoft got and dropped their own DRM program they likely had in place. 

I wouldn't consider this a bad thing, though. Companies altering their mistakes and wanting to please the fans is much better than simply following suit and telling us to deal with it.

It's kind of funny watching Peter Moore throw MS under the bus, but still, wow @ $50mil for Titanfall exclusivity, not sure if EA is going to keep it exclusive for long.

EvilTaru

[QUOTE="F1Lengend"][QUOTE="EvilTaru"]

It's kind of funny watching Peter Moore throw MS under the bus, but still, wow @ $50mil for Titanfall exclusivity, not sure if EA is going to keep it exclusive for long.

Ish_basic

if you figure that a publisher takes away about $16-18 in revenue per unit sold (based on what I could find on the internet about the publisher's slice of the $60 price tag of a current gen game), then MS just bought around 2.7 - 3.1 million units of Titanfall to keep it exclusive. For one year on brand new consoles that will inevitably have a limited user base within that first year, it sounds like a good deal for EA. But that's assuming one year. If it's longer than that, the deal doesn't seem so good. EA's got to have sales expectations for this game at twice that.

This!

That's a lot of money for a first year exclusive. Who says TitanFall would have sold that many copies on the PS4? Guaranteed money versus hoping to reach a massive sales targets on a small user base in the beginning of a console's generation.

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of EA's mouth if my life depended on it.  They got rid of online passes.  Why?  Because they knew MS was heavily restricting and imposing limitations that would not necessitate them.  Now, Sony having come out and said what they did, they're going on record as the good guys.  What a load of malarky.

Btw, you once posted that you found a work around to get these forums working?  Like copy and pasting the link into notepad or something?  What was your advice again, these boards are intolerable.

MrGeezer

Electrolling Arts. That's all I'll say.iDefinition

Well, Sony has come out and said that they will leave it up to the publishers whether they will charge some sort of fee for buying used. That's the essentially the same thing. I highly doubt we're going to see any PS4 games without any kind of used payment.MirkoS77

I actually do doubt it. What Sony is saying is that just how it was on the PS3 is how it will be on the PS4. They already allowed game publishers to have a DRM system (which is why EA had one). They just put all the responsibility, cost, etc. onto the publisher -- it's a feature they won't support themselves. That means that like the EA fiasco, we'll know who to blame, and we'll have alternatives on the console rather than having to look for them outside the console.

Microsoft is saying "Hey guys, we'll do all this for you, and will require everyone else to do it too!"

Not exactly the same thing.

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]Well, Sony has come out and said that they will leave it up to the publishers whether they will charge some sort of fee for buying used. That's the essentially the same thing. I highly doubt we're going to see any PS4 games without any kind of used payment.m0zart

I actually do doubt it. What Sony is saying is that just how it was on the PS3 is how it will be on the PS4. They already allowed game publishers to have a DRM system (which is why EA had one). They just put all the responsibility, cost, etc. onto the publisher -- it's a feature they won't support themselves. That means that like the EA fiasco, we'll know who to blame, and we'll have alternatives on the console rather than having to look for them outside the console.

Microsoft is saying "Hey guys, we'll do all this for you, and will require everyone else to do it too!"

Not exactly the same thing.

I'll believe it when I see it.  Sony HAS come out and said they will not allow online passes, this is true.  But this is not the same as used game passes.  I don't trust it.  Why would Sony come out and specifically state that it's up to the publishers if it's how it was with the PS3?  Why is that clarification necessary? That they say that shows that there is a difference, not to mention covering their own ass when it does happen, which I believe it will.

Caught me before my edit of "EA PS4" games. :)

I'll believe it when I see it. Sony HAS come out and said they will not allow online passes, this is true. But this is not the same as used game passes. I don't trust it. Why would Sony come out and specifically state that it's up to the publishers if it's how it was with the PS3? Why is that clarification necessary? That they say that shows that there is a difference, not to mention covering their own ass when it does happen, which I believe it will.

MirkoS77

I don't trust anyone outright, as I know they are not in business for me. However, I am in business for me, and between the two of them for a console with next-gen capabilities, the PS4 is the only one of the two that has explicitly stated that publishers must do it by their lonesome.

So that means at least for me that the PS4 is the console I'll get for such games, and I'll optionally ignore DRM requirements for games from publishers that have them. I say optionally, because at least then I know there's a choice if it's a game I actually care enough about to take the plunge.

I'd love to have a XBOX One, but I just can't stomach the industry change it is selling. I can still to this day play my NES games on my NES, my Atari games on my Atari, my N64, PS2, XBOX, etc. games on their original consoles. It was a huge enough deal for me that we lost BC on some of these consoles. Now the story is that we'll lose future replayability without a repurchase, even for single-player games. That's just not good news for me.

I realize things change, but this is too much change too fast. Some of us still buy hard copies because we keep and replay our games, sometimes even collect them. Some of us really don't want to HAVE to be online to keep playing them. And some of us really want the ability to play them after the support life of the console, into the future. Everything has a death date, regardless of what we like to think, but 25 years and counting is better than ten years and guaranteed death by virtual suicide.

System-wide is far worse than publisher-DIY, no matter how it's painted for me, save for the possibility that every publisher will go that route, which at this point seems very unlikely.

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

Caught me before my edit of "EA PS4" games. :)

I'll believe it when I see it. Sony HAS come out and said they will not allow online passes, this is true. But this is not the same as used game passes. I don't trust it. Why would Sony come out and specifically state that it's up to the publishers if it's how it was with the PS3? Why is that clarification necessary? That they say that shows that there is a difference, not to mention covering their own ass when it does happen, which I believe it will.

m0zart

I don't trust anyone outright, as I know they are not in business for me. However, I am in business for me, and between the two of them for a console with next-gen capabilities, the PS4 is the only one of the two that has explicitly stated that publishers must do it by their lonesome.

So that means at least for me that the PS4 is the console I'll get for such games, and I'll optionally ignore DRM requirements for games from publishers that have them. I say optionally, because at least then I know there's a choice if it's a game I actually care enough about to take the plunge.

I'd love to have a XBOX One, but I just can't stomach the industry change it is selling. I can still to this day play my NES games on my NES, my Atari games on my Atari, my N64, PS2, XBOX, etc. games on their original consoles. It was a huge enough deal for me that we lost BC on some of these consoles. Now the story is that we'll lose future replayability without a repurchase, even for single-player games. That's just not good news for me.

I realize things change, but this is too much change too fast. Some of us still buy hard copies because we keep and replay our games, sometimes even collect them. Some of us really don't want to HAVE to be online to keep playing them. And some of us really want the ability to play them after the support life of the console, into the future. Everything has a death date, regardless of what we like to think, but 25 years and counting is better than ten years and guaranteed death by virtual suicide.

System-wide is far worse than publisher-DIY, no matter how it's painted for me, save for the possibility that every publisher will go that route, which at this point seems very unlikely.

My guess - EA probably realized that online passes really weren't gaining them that much, and whatever PR goodwill could be gained from dropping online passes might be more valuable to them.

worlock77

Well, Sony has come out and said that they will leave it up to the publishers whether they will charge some sort of fee for buying used.  That's the essentially the same thing.  I highly doubt we're going to see any used EA PS4 games without any kind of used payment.MirkoS77

Let's assume that the online passes were profitable.  EA comes out and says they are discontinuing them, they gain positive PR.  MS comes out with their policies a few weeks later, so no worries for used games for EA there, and the PS4 says it's up to them whether they want to charge or not for their used games, so they're also covered in that respect.  So it's the best of all worlds for them: great PR and they still get to keep doing what they have been.  I was cautiously optimistic with the news that EA was discontinuing online passes, then I saw MS's reveal and it all made sense.

Taking all into consideration, I don't see how people can neglect to put all these pieces together.  Now it certainly is possible with Ritecello's (sp?) departure EA is making a shift in their business decisions to help their image, but it's too early for me to make any kind of judgement on that.  I'll continue to doubt any move by them, and when they come out and say anything I think immediately the opposite.

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]Well, Sony has come out and said that they will leave it up to the publishers whether they will charge some sort of fee for buying used.  That's the essentially the same thing.  I highly doubt we're going to see any used EA PS4 games without any kind of used payment.MrGeezer

Let's assume that the online passes were profitable.  EA comes out and says they are discontinuing them, they gain positive PR.  MS comes out with their policies a few weeks later, so no worries for used games for EA there, and the PS4 says it's up to them whether they want to charge or not for their used games, so they're also covered in that respect.  So it's the best of all worlds for them: great PR and they still get to keep doing what they have been.  I was cautiously optimistic with the news that EA was discontinuing online passes, then I saw MS's reveal and it all made sense.

Taking all into consideration, I don't see how people can neglect to put all these pieces together.  Now it certainly is possible with Ritecello's (sp?) departure EA is making a shift in their business decisions to help their image, but it's too early for me to make any kind of judgement on that.  I'll continue to doubt any move by them, and when they come out and say anything I think immediately the opposite.

MirkoS77

Let's assume that the online passes were profitable.  EA comes out and says they are discontinuing them, they gain positive PR.  MS comes out with their policies a few weeks later, so no worries for used games for EA there, and the PS4 says it's up to them whether they want to charge or not for their used games, so they're also covered in that respect.  So it's the best of all worlds for them: great PR and they still get to keep doing what they have been.  I was cautiously optimistic with the news that EA was discontinuing online passes, then I saw MS's reveal and it all made sense.

Taking all into consideration, I don't see how people can neglect to put all these pieces together.  Now it certainly is possible with Ritecello's (sp?) departure EA is making a shift in their business decisions to help their image, but it's too early for me to make any kind of judgement on that.  I'll continue to doubt any move by them, and when they come out and say anything I think immediately the opposite.

MirkoS77

The timeline of the announcements does seem shady. I mean, clearly EA knew about what MS was doing when they announced that they'd stop using online passes (MS makes stupid decisions, but I'd expect them to at least consult the bigger publishers before making such drastic changes).

I think you're right and EA are just trying to clean up their image, while still keeping the same practices.

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

Let's assume that the online passes were profitable.  EA comes out and says they are discontinuing them, they gain positive PR.  MS comes out with their policies a few weeks later, so no worries for used games for EA there, and the PS4 says it's up to them whether they want to charge or not for their used games, so they're also covered in that respect.  So it's the best of all worlds for them: great PR and they still get to keep doing what they have been.  I was cautiously optimistic with the news that EA was discontinuing online passes, then I saw MS's reveal and it all made sense.

Taking all into consideration, I don't see how people can neglect to put all these pieces together.  Now it certainly is possible with Ritecello's (sp?) departure EA is making a shift in their business decisions to help their image, but it's too early for me to make any kind of judgement on that.  I'll continue to doubt any move by them, and when they come out and say anything I think immediately the opposite.

ReddestSkies

The timeline of the announcements does seem shady. I mean, clearly EA knew about what MS was doing when they announced that they'd stop using online passes (MS makes stupid decisions, but I'd expect them to at least consult the bigger publishers before making such drastic changes).

I think you're right and EA are just trying to clean up their image, while still keeping the same practices.