Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
caco_killer

EA To Try and Profit From Used Game Sales.

Recommended Posts

By charging a $10 fee to play a game online if you purchased a used copy.

Electronic Arts is the king of the sports game market with hot upcoming titles including NCAA Football 11, NHL 11, Madden NFL 11, NBA 11, FIFA 11, and EA Sports MMA. Now it has made a controversial decision concerning all of those titles -- it will lock players who buy used copies out of online multiplayer.

"Online services, features and bonus content" will all be covered by a one time code, that won't work for the new purchaser. EA describes, "You will be unable to play multiplayer online game modes or use your downloaded content in online game modes."

Used purchasers do gain access to a 7 day trial, but they will have to purchase a $10 pass if they want to continue to play online.


http://www.dailytech.com/EA+Locks+Used+Sports+Games+Out+of+Online+Multiplayer+Asks+for+10+Fee/article18346.htm

I am surprised Activision did not try and do this before EA did. I don't know why these greedy publishers feel like they are entitled to money from used game sales.

Share this post


Link to post

This is the kind of thing that makes me think about not buying anything from certain publishers...I could live without EA, but I don't know about activision...(don't fuck up activision)

Share this post


Link to post

I dropped Activision years ago. Doom3 is the last Activision product I'll own.

Share this post


Link to post

I can't say this surprises me. Well, I wouldn't even consider buying anything from such extortionists.

Share this post


Link to post
Abyssalstudios1 said:

NCAA Football 11, NHL 11, Madden NFL 11, NBA 11, FIFA 11, and EA Sports MMA... at least nobody cares.


Yeah, but EA will most likely try and pull this stunt with other games they sell in the future if this works out for them. EA's sports games are very popular, especially Madden.

Share this post


Link to post

At this moment in time I can't post anything that wouldn't invoke Godwin's law for the thesis of my argument. I believe this will at least cause resellers of said product to discount the value by whatever the price of the used multiplayer fee is. I've seen games selling for $70 brand new be sold at the same store @ $5.00 discount because their used. Who the hell will even go near a used copy with that current price scheme + plus having to pay for multiplayer?

People selling their games on craigslist/ebay will want to factor this fee into their used pricing as well if they want to remain competitive with other sellers that will flood the market with the same game they got sick of.

I'm thinking this is all a strategy to create a smaller gap between buying used and buying brand new in the market outside of big outlets that deal in used games. At Gamestop or EB, it will result in a slightly cheaper used copy, and if you want multiplayer with what you get off Craigslist you will try to negotiate the difference if it isn't already in the price.

This is all a strategy to get people buy brand new, and selling used less profitable or recoverable.

Share this post


Link to post
EA Games said:

Challenge Everything


Like good games LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

That said, I'd buy 20 EA games before I bought a another CoD. Lets not forget who the real problem is.

Share this post


Link to post

Who cares there have been like three good games from any publisher released in the last five years.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmph, they're really not enjoying the massive money they're making already enough?

Tell ya what, people will buy new games when they stop selling for $60USD+ a pop. Lower your prices and you'll make more money.

Share this post


Link to post

Heh, from reading EA's site.

You need Gold subscription shit and if you lost your product key, then you'll be paying even more.

and from that article.

GameStop CEO said ""GameStop is excited to partner with such a forward-thinking publisher as Electronic Arts. This relationship allows us to capitalize on our investments to market and sell downloadable content online, as well as through our network of stores worldwide.""

And people ask me why I don't buy new systems and games.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, if anything that clarifies once and for all the position of at least one major game publisher (EA) vs. the very interesting question "How is buying used legal?", with myk's good peace.

The answer, at least for EA seems to be: "Good question, Jim. It's a thorn in the side, which we've been trying to pull out by various means". This is just one of their "various means". And they aren't the only ones either.

Share this post


Link to post

If the EULA clearly states that you are buying a license to use the software and that this license is not transferable to any other person, and this is made abundantly clear before a purchase is made, then this seems fair enough; in fact, they're being rather generous. If it is hidden away in some small print, it is at least ethically highly dubious.

If they are trying to do this for games sold in a box (with the traditional implication that the license to use the software comes as a result of this physical purchase), with an effective license change introduced retrospectively, then they are in the wrong and should expect a successful legal challenge.

Share this post


Link to post

Surprisingly enough I see nothing wrong with this, online access and downloadable content is a customer service and EA's customer is the original purchaser. Bearing the cost of maintaining a large online presence while not making one lousy cent out of second-hand game sales means something has to give and in this case it's the freeloaders who loose out.

Share this post


Link to post
GreyGhost said:

Bearing the cost of maintaining a large online presence while not making one lousy cent out of second-hand game sales means something has to give and in this case it's the freeloaders who loose out.



For that matter no records or video game company ever made one lousy cent out of second-hand physical record, video tape, DVD, floppy, CD-ROM, DVD-ROM, game cartridge etc. EVER and in that case there was a material cost.

Dunno how they survived all those years, maybe primary sales were better? Then they'd have a case vs. piracy. That model has been borderline viable ever since the advent of home dubbing, and only recovered a bit during the late 90s when tapes were dying out but no suitable replacement was present...then MP3s killed it off even worse than before.

But if maintaining an "online presence" without any packaging and manufacturing costs proves not to be economically viable either and forces an industry to scrounge pennies from second-hand sales, then the industry must be really in a piss-poor state. Let alone that they won't be able to enforce the "scrounging" on anything released in the past century, and that being able to collect will depend on them keeping a whole forward-compatible server infrastructure for "online second hand sales"...and ya know, companies close, change, merge, servers go down...

...they must have spent so much in DRM R&D and legal counseling to keep it "profitable" that I wonder how their bean counters determined that it's still worth the effort. Let alone that if there are not first-hand sales of "online second-hand sales" enabled games, there won't be enough second-hand transactions either.

Share this post


Link to post

Just passing though... think I'll leave this here...

George Carlin said:
I don't understand why prostitution is illegal. Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal? You know, why should it be illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away? I can't follow the logic on that one at all! Of all the things you can do, giving someone an orgasm is hardly the worst thing in the world. In the army they give you a medal for spraying napalm on people! In civilian life you go to jail for giving someone an orgasm!


Anyway, it's sad (even though it's only for the Sports titles) but it isn't as if we couldn't have seen this coming.

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting thought, George Carlin's. Essentially it's a more coloured example of how a sequence of actions that are otherwise legal per-se, result in an illegal one if combined together.

Then again the law is up to interpretation, and certain actions or specific combinations may be explicitly outlawed or subject to per-case interpretation/negotiation with the law. Because the law is, essentially, yet another form of man-made commodity and politics. It can always be negotiated, twisted, and bent to suit particular interests.

Share this post


Link to post

What's the defense for people who believe that online feature "rights" should be transfered with second-hand sales?

You can still play the games offline, so I'm not seeing an issue here...

Seems perfectly reasonable that "non-essential" features of a game need to be activated by "individual owners of the game", and not be activated for a "specific copy of the game" in general.

Like GreyGhost more or less said, "Servers, and the people who maintain them aren't free". Why should the game companies foot the bill for second hand buyers, who financially contribute nothing to them?

Share this post


Link to post
E.J. said:

Seems perfectly reasonable that "non-essential" features of a game need to be activated by "individual owners of the game", and not be activated for a "specific copy of the game" in general.


Maybe it will seem perfectly reasonable -as well as the only way- in 50-60 years or so from now, when the last dinosaurs that ever saw a store-bought, entirely self-contained, complete video game die or forget about them.

Then it will be considered normal. But now? Not nearly everyone has bought into that whole "online service oriented" and "cloud computing" thing, you know. Some people (a dying breed?) still think of games as of physical goods (or at least, copyable physical goods), so anything that perverts them in any way is an abomination to be eradicated.

Share this post


Link to post

Not nearly everyone has bought into that whole "online service oriented" and "cloud computing" thing, you know. Some people (a dying breed?) still think of games as of physical goods (or at least, copyable physical goods), so anything that perverts them in any way is an abomination to be eradicated.

I'd be one of those people 'against' eliminating physical distribution, 'online only' games, or making games available soley through online download services.

Thing is I don't believe that playing the physical copy of the game you own 'online' through a 'service' falls under those previous categories. They (the services) are external to the physical copy of the game you buy anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

Not nearly everyone has bought into that whole "online service oriented" and "cloud computing" thing, you know. Some people (a dying breed?) still think of games as of physical goods (or at least, copyable physical goods), so anything that perverts them in any way is an abomination to be eradicated.


It's not so much that I'm afraid of, it's what it will lead to in the future that's the nightmare scenario. (complete control for the majors and the eradication of everything they don't own, ie. retro/indie/freeware/open source gaming & software, everything. Same goes for music and other forms of electronic entertainment)

Share this post


Link to post
MajorRawne said:

E A Games. Charge for everything.

I see what you did there.


Well, looks like EA has given up with their inability to effectively fight piracy, so once again, they pick on the average Joe instead.

Share this post


Link to post

The 'fight against piracy' was never more than a pretext to find ways to make the legitimate customers pay more.

It's merely the justification they need to get past the politicians.

Share this post


Link to post

My solution: stop buying any video games made by anyone.

Good thing I'm much more of a table top gamer these days.

Share this post


Link to post

Hearing more and more news like this is just making me go further and further away from new games. Not that many new games were good anyway, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry, but as far as I see it, this is about people complaining that they don't get something for free. Is someone claiming that the single player offline modes are going to be unavailable?

Being that online console gaming was only made mainstream as recent as the original X-Box, and to a lesser extent the Dreamcast, I don't understand why people feel they are entitled to free online gaming. Some PC game developers actually charge monthly fees to connect to their online pay services (EverQuest). Some offer free services (Diablo II, via BattleNet) that in reality may, or may not, be covered by initial purchase costs.

Buy second-hand games, and they'll play fine, you should be able to play them without issue. Just don't expect the "services" for online play to be free.

Share this post


Link to post
E.J. said:

I'm sorry, but as far as I see it, this is about people complaining that they don't get something for free.

Not really. What's at the heart of this is what the original purchasers have purchased, and if they have the right to sell that on (or give it) to someone else (i.e. an act that once completed, means that they no longer have any right to use the product that they originally bought). It is quite normal for someone who has bought a product to be able to sell it on to someone else. Like second-hand cars, second-hand books, second-hand computers, etc. It's a very well established practice.

Note that I own a publishing company, and don't have any problem with the idea of people selling on copies that they have bought to other people. That is, they sell the physical copy to someone else and by virtue of that transaction the new purchaser has the right to view the content (clearly, given that they own a copy) and the original purchaser no longer has that ability. There is no breach of copyright there.

So what has the original purchaser bought in this case? Do they have the right to play online and get upgrades? If they don't have the right to sell their rights on in their entirety, then this should be made completely clear from the outset, so that anyone who is offered the product second-hand knows that it is in fact fraudulent and they would be buying something that couldn't legally be sold.

Share this post


Link to post

Then there are games that can also be played as multiplayer but never had dedicated servers for that (e.g. Warlords Battlecry used an asymmetrical P2P model, where one of the actual players hosted the game, and had a "lobby" application which was a joke), others are best played in MP (e.g. Battlefield 1942, although people can set up their own dedicated or P2P servers if they wish, even long after the official EA ones will be dead) and some are, well, useless without the official servers (WoW).

Services like Battle.net only function as lobbies to enable players to find one another, but games are hosted P2P on one of the players' machines (for the majority of them, at least, e.g. Warcraft II), so as long as players can find one another, there can be no "closedown" or "denial of service" for these games.

Sadly, as players want more of a "world" setting a-la Second Life or WoW, even this more robust -and impervious- model of multiplayer will eventually die and give its place to 100% controlled centralized servers. Then there will be illegal/unofficial servers....and cracking will just shift paradigm.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×