Menu Close

EA To Adopt A “Customer-First” Stance For Future Used Games

The used game debate continues to rage, and Electronic Arts is aware of its importance.

During an E3 analyst call , EA Labels president Frank Gibeau said they're currently working on a "gamer-first" used game policy for PlayStation 4 and Xbox One titles.

He acknowledges that it has been a major topic of discussion this week, and his company is looking to formulate a strategy based on information released by Sony and Microsoft. It's all about putting the customer first, though, as EA wants to continue to have a relationship with used games that "is a very positive experience" for everyone involved. Microsoft has allowed publishers to choose whether or not used games will be allowed, while Sony announced that the PS4 will have "no gating restrictions."

The latter earned the biggest cheer of the night, by the way.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
18 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
556pineapple
556pineapple
11 years ago

The best used game strategy is to just allow them. I know it kind of sucks for publishers and developers, but it's not any different for physical copies of books, music or movies, so why should games be different?

city96
city96
11 years ago

When you sell on a TV, do you go ahead and send some of that money to Samsung with a note "I sold your TV that I bought from you."?

Kryten1029a
Kryten1029a
11 years ago

I've done some digging into this, and used games are both harmful and beneficial to the industry. It's a two-edged sword but the publishers will never acknowledge the good; only the bad. Bloated budgets, uncontrolled marketing expenses and bland, uninspired games do more harm to them than used games ever will.

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

The difference between used games and every other form of used exchange it's that there is not a multi billion dollar corporation actively encouraging consumers at their most susceptible, at the cash register in a brick and mortar, to save a few dollars while making them a 200 to 300 percent profit.

I do see the good in Gamestop as the used games they buy facilitate the purchase of new games. That's a great thing.

I'm against any form of DRM on consoles, be it total or just online passes. But there had to be a happy medium where everyone can be more satisfied.

Somehow the games industry needs to downsize. I think Ray Myuzka was correct when he said the problem was there are too many games. The thing is if every title was AAA best ever made, we still couldn't buy and play all of them.

Underdog15
Underdog15
11 years ago

Double edge sword, for sure. There are benefits and there are negatives. At this point, the benefits outweigh the negatives. But software is tricky. Not so much for games, as it cannot be copied.

It's funny, the industries that SHOULD prevent used sales of software don't… like music and movies. You can burn that shit onto another disk and sell. Can't do that with games, so that's not an issue. lol

Gabriel013
Gabriel013
11 years ago

KidPresentable, you are spot on with your last paragraph.
They are saying 100 PS4 games will be available in the first year alone if I recall correctly. Just how many gamers will buy even a 3rd of that?

Does anyone know the average number of games bought per year? Even at a ludicrous 1 per week you would only buy half that list and it'd cost you roughly $3,000 to do it.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
11 years ago

EA will have to have no restrictions on Xbone (and of course PS4) to win back consumers. Then when people compare Battlefield 4 to Call of Duty 75 and see Activision with some DRM they will make a better decision.

Corvo
Corvo
11 years ago

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 54

Xombito
Xombito
11 years ago

No no no. They're on Call of Duty: Modern Black Ops Warfare 42. It supposed to feature ghosts or something.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
11 years ago

ooooh, ghosts are scaaaaary!

Kryten1029a
Kryten1029a
11 years ago

G-G-G-Ghosts!!

Akuma_
Akuma_
11 years ago

It's too late to take it back on the Xbone.


Last edited by Akuma_ on 6/12/2013 7:51:37 PM

Warukyure
Warukyure
11 years ago

The only thing I can see them doing on top is probably releasing a game, but then doing massive DLC that makes people want to keep the game. One thing they can do is do the season pass for the year similar to what others are doing. $60 for a years worth of DLC. At least it'll deter people from trading in games as well as gets them to keep it longer. (Making trade-in values useless)

As long as they don't go overboard and withhold content from the game or lock content on this disc to be called "DLC" later on.

Gabriel013
Gabriel013
11 years ago

I don't mind the dlc season pass if they make it clear what will be available. I wouldn't buy a season pass if it's all multiplayer dlc with maybe 1 or 2 pieces of single player dlc.

Kryten1029a
Kryten1029a
11 years ago

EA has gone out of it's way to earn it's reputation with gamers. They're known for microtransactions, ruining studios and a laundry list of other things. They're genuinely hated; the Consumerist's "Worst Company in America" award (which EA has won twice in a row)isn't necessarily about the objectively worst company, but the company that has the worst image in the eyes of it's customers. EA's reaction to the award has been to point the blame elsewhere and never acknowledge that the problem might be with them.
I'd love to see them mend their ways and do something to regain their status as a force for good in the industry, but I'll believe it when I see it. John Riccitello made similar noises when he took over as CEO in 2007. The company made some half-hearted steps toward reforming itself, but fell back into old habits. It's kind of like the story of the Fox and the Scorpion: EA can't help it; it's in their nature!

Akuma_
Akuma_
11 years ago

Yeah, as I thought, their main reason for dropping the Online Passes would probably have been because of this. They are being seen as anti-consumer, their Worst Company in America award proves that.

Amnesiac
Amnesiac
11 years ago

Fine.
Is it me or should game companies themselves offer a subscription based service with a trade in value amount?
In the case of EA –
I see more of their sports games collecting dust more than any other game manufacturer or genre.
I used to blame Gamestop and other places for buying so many at a time, only to occupy so much unnecessary space because I don't believe too many people are going to want to play NCAA 2009 anymore —- but there they are– side by side an entire shelf cataloged by year, each one obsolete in its own way
devoted by no one.

So what if EA gave a trade in credit for some other EA title (Madden XX for Crysis 3)
I feel it could work in the same vein as Game FLY does.
You are provided with a self addressed envelope when received you'd get a credit back to apply to said game.

Does anybody else think this sort of "taking out the middleman" approach could possibly work?


Last edited by Amnesiac on 6/12/2013 9:31:35 PM

___________
___________
11 years ago

nice to see winning the golden poo award 2 years in a row is finally having a effect!
watch out ubisoft, way your going your going to be next years recipient!

18
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x