Ben-DutkaNow that Electronic Arts has announced their Online Pass program for their large stable of titles, where you must pay $10 to play online if you bought the game used, other publisher may be devising similar programs.
EA's is clearly designed to get a little money back for building and maintaining their entire online EA Sports infrastructure, and because they – like most publishers – hate the fact that they never see a dime of profit from used game sales. And according to Explicit Gamer , both THQ and Ubisoft may be next on the list to charge online fees. This is evidenced by details for the upcoming UFC Undisputed 2010 ; if you buy it new, go ahead and play online for free as always. But if you buy it used, there will be a $5 fee:
"…multiplayer content for UFC Undisputed 2010 will be available via a one-time code included with the game at purchase. Codes for accessing the content will be available for second-time buyers for an additional $5. Details for acquiring the codes and how this will work will be available via the UFC community site."
This is following a simple paragraph outlining what the online experience will be like, not a paragraph talking about special DLC or something like that. Furthermore, Ubisoft says they are currently "looking very carefully at what is being done by EA regarding what we call the '$10 solution,' and we will probably follow that line at sometime in the future." This was a statement by Ubisoft CFO Alain Martinez, so it seems almost inevitable that most major publishers will do something similar to EA's Online Pass program. Okay, Activision, how's about you…?
"…but since places like Gamestop are greedy and most everyone complains about them it's about time Devs stood up and started sticking it to them."
The problem is they are not sticking it to Gamestop by doing this. They are sticking it to the end user, you, me. This hurts us more than it hurts Gamestop or people reselling used games. It really just hurts the buyer.
If they want to charge Gamestop $5 for every used game they sell, fine. That will actually hurt Gamestop and not the user, unless Gamestop then jacks the price up $5 to cover it. Which they very well might.
I don't know. I don't see how this does anything but prove that the game maker is greedy. Selling something used has never paid back the manufacturer that created the product, no matter what it was. I don't see why it should work that way with games, especially if it is not effecting game creator's servers in any way (and it is not). The user load stays the same because the original player gives up their online spot when they give the game to the person that bought it from them. It isn't like there are 2 people playing now, there's still just one.
how hurt would EA be if gamestop stopped carrying their titles?
So how exactly will this work? Will it be like MGO and not use the PSN, but make me create an EA account or something? That's the only way i can see them keeping up with the codes. Also, should Sony step in and block this cause it seems that this would break Sony's promise of free online play.
so what if you buy a new game,enter the "one time code",get online and play………….then when other accounts on your ps3 wants to use it online also,what happens now WTF???
not to mention if a friend want to borrow it to play online and etc,etc,freaking complicated shiiiiiiit -_-
Each PSN-ID holder is responsible for purchasing their own online play pass. What is complicated about that?
If I buy a game new, I get to play online because I paid to play online too. That makes sense.
If I sell my copy, I no longer play it online and the person that bought it from me should be able to play online because I already paid to play it online, I'm just giving my spot up for someone else by selling the game to them.
They cannot claim that they are having to cover server costs or anything like that, because it's still one person using the game, not two now. There's no "extra cost" to the game company's servers because one person is still all that's using it.
If I sell my car used, someone does not have to go to the manufacturer and pay $100 for a key that only they can use to drive the car. They key I had for it still works and doesn't cost the car manufacturer anything.
I really don't see the point in charging folks just to play online because they bought a used game. There is no good argument for this.
I do see a reason to charge someone for extra online content. Let's say, someone bought a new game and they use a key that comes with it that unlocks extras. They sell the game to a friend. The friend can't use the extras until they buy the $5 online pass (it needs to be $5, not $10). That makes more sense because it's extra content, not something that you should be able to do with the game out of the box, like simply play a multiplayer game online.
To those of you saying "I play single player, so this won't effect me", good for you I guess? I don't see how saying that is related to the article at all. I would think there are enough online folks that this will matter to them. It matters to me, as I mostly jump straight into multiplayer and sometimes completely ignore the single player portion of a game. For example, Bad Company 2 or Modern Warfare 2. I have barely touched their single player, and it will probably stay that way.
Last edited by Xplaced on 5/24/2010 11:32:06 AM
You said "If I sell my copy, I no longer play it online and the person that bought it from me should be able to play online because I already paid to play it online, I'm just giving my spot up for someone else by selling the game to them."
Sorry, you are completely wrong. You purchased the game and that purchase allowed *you* the licensed user of the game to access the online portion. You are not purchasing a notional slot that is reserved forever for that particular copy of the game, you are purchasing a named user license for you (or whoever activates the game online). When you sell the game to someone else, you can sell the game disc, but that is all. The second hand buyer is responsible for acquiring their own license to use the online content.
All of you have to get this 'slot' concept out of your heads, it does not, never has and never will work that way. That's the simple and plain truth. I don't care if you like it, I don't care if it bugs you that someone points this out to you, but it is what it is and it completely invalidates the rest of your argument.
As Orvisman points out below, this will actually force GameStop and others to lower their price for used games. They might even start selling access codes with the used games for the $5 or $10 that he publisher charges online. That way they can still make the sale. Either way it will force used game prices down.
I know some peoples gonna get to disagree with me, but heres my two cents.
I really don't have the money to shell out for new games. So if someone wants me to play online with them I tend to rent games. We already know rental places are hardly keeping their heads above water thanks to netflix and gamefly. Movie gallery finally closing down fully.. Others are having trouble staying afloat thanks to block buster. Even their having trouble as well.
This in the end will leave places like netflix and gamefly to really rent from if this keep going as is.
So heres the thing, They might be thinking oh we're stopping use game sells go us, But they also are hurting people who rent. ALOT of people I know ethier gos to a friends how to check out multiplayer before grabbing a game or rent it.
Now if this goes through this won't happen. Thus they can lose sells.. Also people who rent games tend to play them both single and multiplayer and go hey you know I want to buy this game. This won't happen cause there will be no multiplayer. Sure they can pay the 5 or 10 dollars.. But who in their right mind would want to do that on a rental?
Also we can look at it this way for rentals.
Imagen going to test driver a car and lets see one of these features is locked out. No music, only can drive 20-30 mph .. or something like that. But if you pay the 5-10 dollars its unlocked.
Really would you want to do this?
That's a really good point Joltmar. I too wonder how they will work out rentals!
Thanks, I've had time to really think this out after watching my local movie gallery close down (their having their close out sell now, waiting for them to drop prices again and go in there and get movies and games X3)Which means in the end I'm gonna have to go through gamefly soon. The other rental place is more movies than games ;.;
Gone are the great days of just buying a game and playing it, it seems. Like they say in Red Dead Redemption, "The times are changing fast!"
It was awesome to buy Serious Sam or something like that on a PC and not have to worry about copy protection, a game code, or something like that. That being said, I've bought at least 4 copies of that game to play LAN parties with, though I knew I could copy it and do the same. It was $20 new, and awesome. There's a lot game sellers can learn from that.
Last edited by Xplaced on 5/24/2010 12:04:56 PM
Serious sam <3 I was thinking of getting the HD version when I get my new computer
There is one way how this might benfit those of us who buy used.
GameStop can't very well charge $55 for a used game that someone will have to pay $5-$10 extra to take online when the new game retails for $60, including the online code.
That's exactly what the heck this plan was problem set up for. You pretty much nailed it. Gamestop will lower prices for those who want used. In the mean time to push those people who want the expensive used one they might as well buy the new one and give the company who made the game some cash in the process. EA and co making money is how you and me get new games each year. Without them making money you get nothing. It's as simple as that. Some on here just think their sh** is so good they just deserve everything for free. These companies have to make money, it's kind of logic sense.
whats $60 times 2 mil?
then subtract how much it costs to make the game and distribute it, and finally take away the peanuts they pay the programmers and tell me these companies aren't making a profit.
@Main Event.
EA just lost the better part of $700 million. So, yeah, they lose money.
fair enough, but i highly doubt that that $700 m was lost due to resells.
Yes. And if you don't care about online play, you are really benefitting from this.
This is total B.S.!!! I always rent my games before buying so that I'm not waisting my $60 bucks on a crappy game, which I have done in the past. So now I can't even try out the multiplayer because its not something I purchased. Man Gamefly is goign to loose alot of subscribers because of this. I mean we pay enough for the game and then most of the time another game comes out and then the old one collects dust or gets traded in for a new one. So why would we want to rent the online service? If they do start charging then I EXPECT to never see any lag, never see any cheaters and there BETTEr be support for any issues 23/7. Then and ONLY then would I pay for online multiplayer games.
This is really going to make people only play like 1 maybe 2 games online then. Greedy developers better try a different approach to this, especially now that Sony will start charging for there PSN!!! If this keeps up with paying top dollar for games and then to get online and play with others who paid top dollar then I might just have to give it up and sell my PS3 and buy a Blue Ray DVD player.
Yeah, go back to the PS2 and bargain bin games dude, why not?
Or, you could read reviews and try games with demos before buying the ones you really like.
Sony is not going to start charging for PSN – you are trolling.
AWWWWWWWWWWWWW, a potential, already included for free feature may turn to a pay service and people are upset? Was one reason you bought a PS3 over an X-Box that PSN was free???? Now you know how those of us who bought a PS3 because it could run Linux feel (or you may in the future). I myself have never played a game online and never really intend to so even if all online play cost something I could care less as I DON'T USE IT. So those who are upset please just take a minute to put yourself in the position of those who did use the Other O/S feature but had it taken away. Not so much fun, is it? Do you feel betrayed? hahahaha…What are they charging you for anyways? They aren't the ISP, you still need that to play onlines. They just should not charge for updates, or force one to upgrade their firmware and remove features, to get patches and updates for games, esp ones not actually made by Sony. This other stuff who cares, they're all money grubbers.
Hey Whooka, why let the truth get in the way of your rant?
Online is free regardless. This only affects buyers of used games and it's not limited to PS3. This has nothing to do with Sony or Microsoft charging for online, it's purely the developer/publisher wanting their slice of the pie when it comes to used game sales. But hey, you go ahead and aimlessly flame away.
This has zip to do with Sony, and zip to do with OtherOS.
You asked what they are charging for, if you bothered to read any of the posts in this thread, or the article itself instead of reacting first, you would know the answer to that.
Oh, and by the way, executive compensation happens whether or not a corporation loses money. As it happens EA posted a $677 million loss, so sure point at the executive salaries, but let's not forget the 1000s of peons that EA employs who are under threat because the company loses money.
Last edited by TheHighlander on 5/25/2010 11:17:48 AM
Highlander, you're right, EA lost alot of money and is really hurting…
Lawrence F Probst III
Total Compensation
$12.59 mil (#114)
5-Year Compensation Total
$81.76 mil
Lawrence F Probst III has been CEO of Electronic Arts (ERTS) for 15 years. Mr. Probst III has been with the company for 22 years .The 56 year old executive ranks 6 within Software & Services