Ben-DutkaWe just got finished saying that gamers are bigger fans of EA than Activision these days, but perhaps the quest for more money will rub some consumers the wrong way.
As reported by Industry Gamers , EA is set to launch a registration program for their upcoming games. It's basically a premium subscription and it's designed to offer members additional downloadable and exclusive content. EA will debut the "Pass" with Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11 and then continue to release the Pass for all EA sports titles. EA Sports head man Peter Moore said this new program allows the company "to accelerate our commitment to enhance premium online services to the entire robust EA Sports online community." Now, here's the catch- if you buy the game new, you won't have to pay anything; you'll simply have to sign up and then go…however, if you buy it used, you have to pay $10 to get the Pass, which will be required to play the game online. Obviously, gamers really aren't used to this; paying $10 for an Online Pass in addition to buying the game, and apparently because they bought a used product. Just bear one thing in mind: only the retailer makes any profit on a used game; the publishers and developers never make a dime on the resale of titles, which is why so many have a problem with GameStop's program.
Clearly, this is a way for EA to get paid for their games technically being sold time and time again. Even so, it may not go over well. EA Senior Vice President of Worldwide Development Andrew Wilson had this to say:
"It’s quite simple – every game will come with a game-specific, one-time use registration code with each unit sold new at retail. With your Online Pass, you’ll have access to multiplayer online play, group features like online dynasty and leagues, user created content, and bonus downloadable content for your game including, for example, a new driver in Tiger…we think it’s fair to get paid for the services we provide and to reserve these online services for people who pay EA to access them. In return, we’ll continue to invest in creating great games and offer industry-leading online services to extend the game experience to everyone. I don’t think even the harshest cynic can argue with that and instead I think fans will see the value we’re committing to deliver when they see all the services, features and bonus content that is extending the life of their products."
I'm sure there will be some vocal complaints about this but please, consider it from all angles before freaking out.
Hey EA… you did what? *bitch slap* how dare you serves you right for releasing the same game every year.
Toxin,
I usually buy used so I'll answer your question.
I'm not sure what you mean by "only a $5 to $10 discount", but my discounts are almost always at least $30 or more, plus another 10% discount totaled off all my used games too.
As for myself, I don't do online or MP modes, and I'm usually on a very tight limited income, so I can actually "afford" to wait out every game(yes, even if it's over a year or more later).
I'm a console & games collector with over 1400 games now, so I usually have to buy used just to be able to afford all the games I still NEED for my collections.
And I try to stay at around a $20 dollar price-point for most games, but I also buy new when GS has a price drop to around $35 when they're also offering up one of their "Buy2-Get1 free" deals.
So at least for me, there's really no need to me to rethink or justify anything, because I clearly have done all my own homework on this one.
I also agree with Highlander. I fully get what EA is doing and it makes sense.
I hardly buy a game second hand but when I do it has a good reason for it and also in my country 2nd hand games don't sell for much cheaper than the original ones in the shops so we don't really score by buying 2nd hand games. Maybe a little but definitely not a lot.
So in my opinion what EA is doing here is right. And as Highlander said why would they want to give you the whole online thing for free if you bought the game 2nd hand from a 3rd party which means they make no money.
Think about this for a second… What if every single game sold was a brand new purchase? Don't you think the sales of lets say Uncharted , GOW, heavy Rain and all those would have been a lot more???? How many time have those game been sold and resold at the cost of the developer?
Take Heavenly Sword for instance. Ninja Theory complained that they didn't sell enough even thou they did sell like 2,5 mil or something like that. But how many time have that title been resold and sold again…. say maybe 4-5Mil times?
What if that was the original figure that they sold… we would have Heavenly Sword 2 and even 3 by now.
My point is developers work hard and spend millions in bringing us these productions the least we can do is support them.
If this is a way for them to reward first time buyers then great.I am all for it.
Don't get me wrong I am not completely against buying games 2nd hand but i only buy them if I don't think it warrants the full price purchase. Or usually it's games I buy to keep me occupied until the next BIG title releases.
But as far as exclusives go I always buy them first hand.
That is just my opinion and the way I see it. Some of you might disagree but I honestly hope there are more that will agree on my standpoint.
I'm wondering if they would need to have the free online – only if you buy it new – displayed rather porminently on the cover of the game? Otherwise, I think somebody would have a pretty good case against them for false advertising.
I agree about putting a more prominent notification, but I also have to say that when you buy an EA Sports and go online, there is already a separate registration process that you go through, so it's clear that you are creating an account with EA and signing into it, in addition to your PSN account. There is a big fat user license that you have to agree to to go online at all with EA Sports titles, so it's already pretty well spelled out. But a clear notification on the game's packaging would be appreciated (not that GameStop generally have the original packaging…)
Someone asked the question, "Why treat buying a used video game as if it were pirated and sold?"
Stop and think for a minute.
You develop a game and launch it. You sell 1.5 million copies – yay. But then you find that there are 2.5 million users. You only got money from 1.5 million of those users.
Now, does it really matter to you as a developer whether the extra 1 million users got their game through second hand purchase or through piracy? Not really, because from your point of view they are all users who paid you nothing.
So, in answer to the question "Why treat buying a used video game as if it were pirated and sold?", because to the developer/publisher, a non-paying user is a non-paying user is a non-paying user. That doesn't mean that developers/publishers see used game buyers as pirates, clearly it's not the same thing, but from a business and finance perspective a lost sale is a lost sale, regardless. So from that perspective used game sales and piracy are effectively the same.
Last edited by TheHighlander on 5/12/2010 11:12:38 AM
There is still only 1.5mil users though, sure there are 1 mil different users but there are still only 1.5mil discs floating around and that is ALL EA should be paid for IMO. I totally understand the business side of it, but I'm not an employee or shareholder of EA so I'm not arguing for that side. This is the samething as baggage fees for airlines, just a way to fleece customers for more money. I hope this does NOT workout for EA because if it does we'll see this type of charge spread to other publishers and every possible market were second hand stuff is sold.
I assume this code is linked to ones PSN/XBL ID? So if somes console turns into a paper wieght and purchases a new console they will not be required to pay $10?
I'm fairly certain it's linked to your PSN-ID, and not tied to a specific PS3.
Hey Highlander,
I still have a nagging scenario type question (above) that I was hoping you might be able to answer for me.
Thanks
I think that you will get a single use online pass code with the new purchase. If you use the code and then sell the game on, then the second buyer needs to buy the online pass. If you don't use the code and then sell the game, the lucky buyer gets the unused code and can go online.
No wonder EA's trying to get mor money out of us.
Smells to me like the top bosses have milked the hell out their bonuses, so now they're looking for us to pay the hefty price for them.
And since EA already has a multitude of game titles that sold at least a million plus each lately, then why a $677 million loss right now????
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/05/11/ea-posts-677-million-loss-in-fy2010-alongside-downed-revenues/
$677 million in losses?
That's not executive bonuses, that's a huge chunk of lost revenue. Wonder whether some of that is lost sales on 360 thanks to piracy and used game sales…and used game sales on PS3…
This amount of loss is huge, to lose that on a single year, they either took an extraordinary charge on their balance sheet or took a bath on several major games.
I think there's some extra ordinary charges going through the books to create that size of loss.
I guess they could have needed to release a large amount of capitalised development costs I suppose.
I always think that just because it states a loss, that is never enough information to get a true picture.
Is that the Net Income Statement loss figure?
Is that after dividends? Taxes?
I'm too cheap to purchase the company accounts to find out 😀
I'm guessing they took a bath on some crappy games… which is why we all communicate… to avoid misguided and uninformed purchases.
I gotta say, I am with Highlander and Ben on this issue.
I used this example in an earlier reply:
If you buy a used cable modem (as I did) from a second hand store or a garage or street sale, does that mean you get free access to the internet service provided by the cable company that distributes that modem?
I say a big ol' fat "I don't think so!!".
Let's face it… Developers design games because it's their job. Not because making us happy and entertained is a fun hobby for them. I would be so pissed off if I didn't get credit for my own work.
If you buy my game, you buy my game. It's yours. You have access to all it's features. Quite frankly, if you sell it to someone else for them to use all my features for FREE… well… you're what I call a bastard and screw you! (This of course is how I would feel as a developer. I'm not implying anyone here is a bastard…)
Basically, you buy that used modem, it's yours to use. Rogers cable isn't going to make you pay for that piece of equipment again or demand a cut of the second sale. However, they have every right to charge you for the additional services that are provided at a continual cost to them!
Don't forget that video games are a luxury and not a necessity. If you legitimately can't afford a game new or can't pay for that access, perhaps it would be wiser to consider a much wiser way of budgeting your funds.
Some people here complaining of this concept often talk about the games they're going to pick up and buy. I make a decent, not great, but decent living, and I buy maybe 4 games a year. I bought my PS3 at release, and to date have only 9 or 10 games. Sure, I could splurge more money, but it's not responsible from a budgetary perspective for me to do so when I could be using that money for extra mortgage payments or treating my wife to dinner. (lol) I dunno… it just seems a little hypocritical to me. (I am not referring to all of you. Just the ones who seem to have enough money to regularly buy games and still object to this.)
I guess I just don't get why some of you don't understand how this makes sense from both a business and an ethical stand-point…
Aren't we lucky enough to know that if we buy the game new, we get unlimited and free access as PS3 owners? That's pretty sweet if you ask me. Why shouldn't the dev's make a small amount of cash from each user? Sure… buy the game used and play it till it turns to dust. But to access something that has a consistent cost to maintain… yeah. Each person that accesses should have to contribute to that cost… especially if they're only asking for a 1 time cost. It's not like it's a recurring cost.
Am I to understand this correctly, its for just EA Sports games? If so Good, I don't play repeat titles with just different characters and 5 adjustments to the game.
This will ruin Renting Video games as well. Bye Bye Gamefly and Other Renting Chains your business will be a lot slower now. Looks like I'll be doing more Plat 4 Plat and avoid buying EA's Games except for Dead Space.
Guys, I'm sorry to tell you Highlander is dead on, although I feel like he is having trouble fully enunciating the entirety of the issue at hand. Certainly this whole concept has a massive effect on the industry.
Like… frig… if you buy a service/game and after 2 months decide you are bored and never want to play online again, that's your own damn problem. The transfer of property in the real world, does not work that way. Yes, you can buy a used car and not pay the original dealer a cent, however, if your car is still under warranty, (say 60,000 kilometers and 5 years isn't reached) and you buy it USED, you don't get access to those free repairs guaranteed by the car dealer. Why? Because you aren't the original buyer.
Businesses that allow warranties to pass on from user to user are involved in exceptional customer service. It is certainly not a requirement OR the norm. So yeah, you can use that car and drive it into the ground and get great use from it, but the original dealer washes their hands clean of you if it's second hand.
This buying a house crap is rubbish. There are tonnes of fees involved in land transfer, and even if the old owner paid all bills for months, you still have transfer fees and deposits you must pay. And you can't compare mortgages, because that's lending and a whole other issue.
Here's your crappy argument: You buy a game, sell it, and I buy it used. Since you already paid for the game, EA got payment for the online access, so I should be able to play now. That's crap! That theory looks great on it's own, but everything EVERYTHING has a cause and effect relationship, and at the end of the day, EA NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS to turn a profit. They are NOT a non-profit and they are not interested in merely maintaining service.
If you ask me, if 2.5 million different people want to access a feature that has extra cost to the provider, they should have 2.5 million people pay a tiny amount of money to maintain that cost. Not 1.5 million. The PSN can make it work for free because they have countless other measures of offsetting cost.
Write that phrase down: Offsetting cost.
Business thrives by offsetting cost. EA and other dev's have no way of offsetting costs. They don't have their own advertising revenue, they don't have their own online store, they don't have this weird PS HOME thing… Their service is a direct trade. Direct trades must be profitable with every transaction. Sony PS3 offsets the cost of selling PS3's (they LOSE money) through publishing rights on games, the PSN store, etc. EA does NOT.
Look, you simply cannot compare apples to oranges. Traffic on these games must diminish over time if there is not a renewed source of income to maintain it or other method of offsetting costs. You can argue about how devs should want traffic to increase, which is true, but they would only want that if there was income to maintain and sustain profitability.
You folks and your black-and-white business models are truly as Highlander says it is… FLAWED. The gray areas involved and the need to offset cost (memorized that yet?) are so prevalent that they cannot be ignored.
To me, it really does seem like the getting something for nothing mentality. If you ask me, if you pay $50 for a used game, you've been had. Perhaps you deserve to be a little screwed over.
Awesome comment.
American gamers want word with EA it called greed. Would it be same as a GM or any other company to come up ways to charge you to drive a used car made by them because it used and make any money from it.
Except there's no cost to play used games… just to access a service that has continual cost to the provider.
The original car dealer doesn't make any money on the used sale, which is fine. However, they also revoke any rights to warranty on parts, etc. for that first 60k kilometers or 5 years (whatever the warranty is). Same thing… if you get that 150k kilometer powertrain warranty (or whatever it is in the states), it's null and void if sold to you second hand.
Basically, you get the car cheap. Great. But the original distributor has no obligation to provide continued support for services that are of cost. (ie free repairs on warrantied parts, etc.) Why should video games be any different? Yeah you can get a great game cheap and the developer doesn't get a dime, but why should they have an obligation to you to provide a service that costs them money to maintain? Thing is, they don't. Just like a car dealer.
Read my statement above what you wrote. Just one up. It pretty much addressed exactly what you just said.
interesting…………………….me no likey =(
eww. Whiner crybabies with a huge sense of entitlement piss me off.
Why are you missing it? You are purchasing the GAME DISC not the access to the service.
When you buy that disc new, that is a privilege you receive – the pass and all it has to offer. If you choose to buy the disc used for $5 less because you're a cheapass bastard, you are lucky they are providing you with a way to get the pass at all. So you have to pay for the pass now? Well boohoo.
It's like a nice little treat that you get the FREE pass with your NEW game purchase! Yay! So stop whining!
Highlander and Underdog are both right.
I understand EA wanting to get a cut of resale on something used. However I think they are charging the wrong folks. The end user shouldn't be punished for this. The one costing everyone money here is someone like Gamestop who is reselling a used game totally for their profit and ripping everyone else off.
Game companies and Gamestop need to work out a deal where the game companies get a small return on the resale of a used sale. That makes a lot more sense than charging end users to be able to play online. I can tell you right now, I will never buy a used game, then pay the game company $10 extra to play it online. The person that bought it before me already payed for paying it online, and if they don't have it anymore, then they are not using the already purchased online content. There's still only one person using the online content, hence no more cost to EA regardless of it being sold to someone else.
I really don't understand the argument regarding how it costs EA more for the next person to use the game online. The big factor here that folks seem to be missing is that if I sell a game to someone else, I don't have it anymore. Therefore I can't play it anymore, and I don't "cost" EA to play it online because I'm not playing it anymore! There's still just ONE copy of the game being used online. If it's sold 10 times, who cares? It is still the one copy online at any given time. That is no different at all to EA's servers than if I kept the game and played it for two years every day for 2 hours. If 10 people pass the copy around and play it for the same amount of time, it was still one copy of THAT DISC online at a time. If I copied the disc and sold it then yes, I could see the argument here. But, that isn't the case, so I don't see how this is even an issue.
I can understand buying DLC for a minimal fee. That's new stuff, that makes sense. But, just to play online? That was covered in the original purchase that did pay into EA. As I wrote before, it doesn't matter to EA's servers/equipment at all if one or ten people play the same disc, because only one user at a time can play in this case. The user before doesn't magically retain some type of load on EA's servers. They gave up the right to play online when they sold the game to someone else.
As far as the whole "pass for EXTRA online content", I think that is definitely fair to charge for. It just isn't fair to charge a second-hand user $10 so they can get online at all and just enjoy the game as the first user could.
I don't understand why so many on this site have such a hate for Gamestop and buying used. How many of you have sold a car? You bought your car from lets say Ford. Ford got their money. Now 5 years later you sell it used. Ford is NOT getting money the second or third time around. What's the difference in that and games? What about if you sell your clothes at a garage sale. Old Navy or whoever isn't getting a penny – but no one has a problem with that. Why the double standard with all other items being sold used and video games?
Last edited by stgclawson on 5/16/2010 12:58:27 PM
I buy used & I love Gamestop,
and that's probably because I will never sell them anything.
Agreed. I buy from them and take advantage of their Edge Card and Buy 2 get one free. But I almost never trade in my games. I sell them on Amazon instead.