EA sports to lock out multiplayer in used games

[Havok83]

I'm so very glad I don't care about multiplayer in most games.

I wonder what'll happen if this proves successful and Activision follows suit. All the Modern Warfare fans who couldn't necessarily afford a full-priced new copy are gonna be screwed.

Activision is already doing a great job of screwing themselves over...lol

 

[GL1]

Very smart business move. Steps on a lot of entitlement toes, but it works. Most players who are big up on multiplayer are going to buy it new, no complaints there. Most players who buy used are going to see multiplayer as a luxury, not a necessity.

I find it hilarious that you guys are comparing useless cars to a fully playable stable game. I think the most accurate comparison you can give is they take all but the driver's seat out of used cars. You can still play it, just not with others, but even that's not accurate, as the game can be played with local multiplayer.

 

[Havok83]

I find it hilarious that you guys are comparing useless cars to a fully playable stable game. I think the most accurate comparison you can give is they take all but the driver's seat out of used cars. You can still play it, just not with others, but even that's not accurate, as the game can be played with local multiplayer.

Alot of games this generation do not have local multiplayer and some only have multiplayer, making a game that were to use this business model, essentially useless

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Local multiplayer has become an actual feature to list, because it's not as common anymore. I know Borderlands and Splinter Cell Conviction have it, and I was grateful enough for it because they could just have easily made it Online-only, and most gamers would have just accepted it.

I prefer this over how the fineprint screwjob of the Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2 DLC has been for me. Atleast this seems straight foward enough.

Still...comes off as greedy. They'll need to spin it, atleast a little bit. Simply because they'll be the only ones doing it.

 

[B]

I don't buy used games however if EA or any gaming company for that matter think they can charge me an additional £10 to use the online modes of any game on top of the £40 I pay for the actual thing, plus my broadband/internet connection costs they can kiss my money goodbye because I won't even buy they game..

I didn't spend £££'s on a PS3 & ££'s on games to be shafted up the ass sideways by people who are just getting abit too greedy..

 

[Havok83]

I wonder if they thought this thing all the way through. Sure they make no money off of used game sales but they do make money off of DLC, which used game buyers can and do purchase. By doing this, they lose out on those potential sales and end up screwing themselves

 

[Nathan]

So, wait. This means I can't even rent games anymore or borrow game from friends and enjoy the multiplayer unless I pay $10? Wow, that's bull****.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I wonder if they thought this thing all the way through. Sure they make no money off of used game sales but they do make money off of DLC, which used game buyers can and do purchase. By doing this, they lose out on those potential sales and end up screwing themselves

It costs more money to create DLC, though, and it's not as much of a standard feature as multiplayer at this point.

 

[Havok83]

It costs more money to create DLC, though, and it's not as much of a standard feature as multiplayer at this point.

Thats kinda the point. It costs more and by doing this they limit oppurtunities to recuperate the costs. DLC is pretty much standard in multiplayer these days, especially with EA games. Not so much in sports titles, but their shooters and racers, which is a large chunk of their multiplayer titles have them

 

[TheCorpulent1]

And if someone passed on the game initially but becomes interested in the DLC, this encourages them to buy a new copy of the game itself rather than going for the used copies that would no doubt be everywhere by then.

 

[Havok83]

And if someone passed on the game initially but becomes interested in the DLC, this encourages them to buy a new copy of the game itself rather than going for the used copies that would no doubt be everywhere by then.

DLC is something extra for people that already own the game. Its not marketed for those who dont, for obvious reasons bc you need the game first. If someone already has a used copy and DLC later comes out they arent likely to go and repurchase the game simply for DLC. EA loses on those sales

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I was talking about the people who might have been interested in the game but didn't buy it at all initially. DLC might be the final push they need to go out and buy it, and instead of buying a used copy at that point, they'd be likelier to buy a new copy with this new policy in place.

For those who did buy the game used, thinking they didn't want MP: They might purchase the $10 activation for multiplayer if the DLC is something like a new MP mode or map pack or something like that, though. That's at least something going directly to EA rather than through the retailers.

However you slice it, EA is effectively charging more for MP, so unless a huge swath of the market just steadfastly decides not to buy the games at all out of protest--which they will absolutely never do--they're still coming out ahead.

 

[KALEL114]

This really would suck. I use Gamefly and very rarely buy games anymore because of money. I hope this doesn't catch on to other company's.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Same here, but like I said, I'm not a fan of MP in the first place. I don't even bother trying it on most games at this point.

 

[KALEL114]

It really depends on the game for me. I can't think of a game,off hand, from EA that I would play online. My biggest concern is, if it works for them, other company's that I do play online/MP decide to do the same.

 

[Havok83]

It really depends on the game for me. I can't think of a game,off hand, from EA that I would play online. My biggest concern is, if it works for them, other company's that I do play online/MP decide to do the same.

Like I mentioned, Sony already did this with the latest Socom on the PSP and they got alot of backlash for it, enough so that I dont think they'll be doing it again and definetly not on their PS3 games

I wonder though if EA can really do this, especially on the 360 where users already pay a fee to MS to play online. I wonder why MS is even letting this happen and not putting their foot down, especially since they have stricter regulations and control with Xbox Live. It really wouldnt surprise me if we saw a lawsuit with some gamer suing EA for this.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I always thought of DLC as a selling point for owners of the game. An expansion pack-like DLC, like GTA's Lost and Damned or Dragon Age Origins: Awakening does seem like something that can appeal to owners and potential buyers of the original release.

I just don't know if this can work, since the genie is already out of the bottle. It's like the rumor with PSN...if they started charging for online play, now after they've gotten they're users accustomed to this...it would be tough to suddenly hit reverse.

It seems like a really hard sell, to tell gamers they need to pay extra (could be $10, could be $45, depending on when the consumer buys the game) for something that is generally seen as free. I assume people who get angry about paying for DLC, since I hear arguments about how it should have been in the final game, will probably freak out even worse about this.

 

[B]

The entier thing reeks of greed on EA's part..

If I'm understanding it correctly, you only need the pass if you buy used EA games & wish to play them online. I don't buy used games but even if I did, I wouldn't be in any hurry to buy any EA games in the future. People only buy used copies because they are cheap, having to pay an additional $10 to feed EA's fat greedy hands would negate the whole purpose of buying used..

 

[Flash Facts]

I prefer this over how the fineprint screwjob of the Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2 DLC has been for me. Atleast this seems straight foward enough.

What leads you to believe this will be any different? As far as I know it will be using the same DRM as those games and EA's DRM is on a per gamertag basis.

 

[Fading]

I'm totally against this. In fact, and I say this respectfully, I don't get why so many are defending it. Don't get me wrong, I'm for supporting a good game. However there's a difference inbetween supporting game developers, and supporting greedy and underhanded systems and DRM's. When I purchase a game, when I pay that $60 price tag, I want to own that copy and feel free to do whatever I want with it, and play it whenever I want. When I purchase a movie it doesn't make me connect to Warner Bros. servers, and have me shell out $10 for every person in the room watching the movie with me. Nor would anyone put up with that, yet for some reason gamers seem very willing to, and in some cases ask for even strictor measures to be taken if the developers feel it necessary.

This isn't just going to combat used game purchases, it's going to hurt game rental services like Gamefly, or simply loaning a game to a friend, and make sharing games with a sibling who wants to play on their own console or account impossible.

More and more things like this, or Ubisoft's awful, awful system come out and get embraced by a group of staunch defenders saying it's ok to endure it in order to support the devs. I respect that and agree that I want the devs to get the money they earned. However every year DRM gets more bold, and devs take even more extreme steps to prevent piracy or used game purchasing that hurts the consumers that support them and purchase things legally.

I may be overthinking it, but at this rate one day you're going to go to buy a game and find out you can only download it 4x, only play it if you have an internet connection and are signed in to the developers servers (I mean even consoles are seeing this now, Final Fight anyone?), and be unable to loan it out to anyone without getting locked out of the game (and to say it won't happen probably is wrong as all of these things already happen, just not on one single title).

 

[Addendum]

Playing the single-player experience of Half-Life 2 with a required internet connection is one of the reasons I left PC gaming. If that same policy happens on consoles, I'll quit gaming all together.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I always thought of DLC as a selling point for owners of the game. An expansion pack-like DLC, like GTA's Lost and Damned or Dragon Age Origins: Awakening does seem like something that can appeal to owners and potential buyers of the original release.

I just don't know if this can work, since the genie is already out of the bottle. It's like the rumor with PSN...if they started charging for online play, now after they've gotten they're users accustomed to this...it would be tough to suddenly hit reverse.

It seems like a really hard sell, to tell gamers they need to pay extra (could be $10, could be $45, depending on when the consumer buys the game) for something that is generally seen as free. I assume people who get angry about paying for DLC, since I hear arguments about how it should have been in the final game, will probably freak out even worse about this.

Doesn't matter if they freak out. The real question is, will they stop buying the games? Actually, that's not really a real question because the answer is obvious: No, they won't. Gamers like games and they're going to keep buying them no matter what. It's the same reason comics still sell even though their prices are increasing well ahead of inflation. The people who buy them really love them, to the extent that they simply will not stop buying them unless there's an extremely major affront, like jacking the price of new games up to $75 overnight or something equally extreme. Even then, I'm sure plenty of gamers who can afford it would still continue to buy games. It's not about principles or stopping corporate greed or anything, it's about gamers getting to play the games they want to play, period. The publishers would have to hurl some truly massive obstacles in their way to stop any significant portion of the gaming market from continuing to buy.

The only way I could see these kinds of blatantly greedy practices causing a significant decrease in sales is if pirated copies were more readily available for console games. But piracy's not really an issue on consoles, so gamers pretty much have no choice other than paying whatever the gaming companies want them to pay for all of the games' features or just not playing the game at all.

 

[marvelman2006]

question I cant open the link cause of my job but how will they know it is used when its in the system? I only play madden and fifa from them and this is obviously an attempt to gouge the economy even more. not every one can afford to run out and pay $60 for a new game that will last maybe 8 hours of gameplay, and when they can save 20-30 dollars and get a used copy online.

take for instance the new fifa game, a kid really wants it and his parents cant afford $60 for a new copy but can if its $30 used on amazon. now they have to pay an extra money for there kid to get the full experience? Im not being mean but anyone who saids "well the parents need suck it up" then clearly you are a kid or have no big commitments in life or how to budget money. if it isnt gas companies trying to shake us down its something else.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

There will be a unique, one-use-only code packaged with new games. I assume it'll unlock the multiplayer for all copies of the game, used or new, so that you could use any disc and still get MP, even if it's not the original disc you bought. Alternatively, they can purchase a MP activation code for $10. So everyone who's playing online will represent at least one new game purchased or one $10 activation paid directly to EA without any middlemen.

As for your example, it sucks for that kid and the parents, but they would have to either suck it up and pay or just go without the game. Video games are a luxury item, not something anybody's entitled to.

 

[marvelman2006]

There will be a unique, one-use-only code packaged with new games. I assume it'll unlock the multiplayer for all copies of the game, used or new, so that you could use any disc and still get MP, even if it's not the original disc you bought. Alternatively, they can purchase a MP activation code for $10. So everyone who's playing online will represent at least one new game purchased or one $10 activation paid directly to EA without any middlemen.

As for your example, it sucks for that kid and the parents, but they would have to either suck it up and pay or just go without the game. Video games are a luxury item, not something anybody's entitled to.

, I think anyone is entitled to video games hence why there made accessible everywhere, what is there some secret club where you buy games? but my logic in thinking is if I bought a game used why should I have to worry if the the designer is getting there cut. they already got there cut when the game was sold originally, plus most studios get extra money for DLC anyway.

so if I go up to a yard sale and buy madden 2010 for $10 I then have to turn around and pay another chunk of change to EA because they cant stand some joe smoe making money off there product that they already made money from? its almost like double jeopardy, in this case your trying to charge someone twice for the the same murder. madden 2010 even makes you pay anyway for upgrades plus $10 to get online? I got a salute for ea and it aint the american salute.

its sad how our economy is turning into a mentality of
"make money anyway you can to stay alive and rich"