EA sports to lock out multiplayer in used games

[Addendum]

Well, it's just because EA thinks they're hot **** because they churn out games as opposed to cars, books, or clothes. Though you don't hear book publishers, writers, car makers, or clothes designers complain about the second hand market.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

, 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"

I understand what you're saying and I sympathize, but what I meant by "luxury item" is that not everyone absolutely must have access to video games. It's not a basic necessity of life, it's a fun distraction. You seem to be treating it like this hypothetical kid has a right to obtain a copy of Madden 2010 at a reasonable price. He doesn't. Nobody has a right to any video games at any price other than what the publishers set. The publisher puts a game on the market at a certain price point, and if you can't meet it, you don't get to play it. It sucks, but that's the way commercialism works.

 

[Addendum]

Game publishers aren't the only ones that set prices. I bought a new copy of Condemned 2 at Target for $19.95 a few months after it came out. Every other place had it at least 20 bucks more. t:

 

[Havok83]

Game publishers aren't the only ones that set prices. I bought a new copy of Condemned 2 at Target for $19.95 a few months after it came out. Every other place had it at least 20 bucks more. t:

Publishers dont set the prices unless an item is bought directly through them. They reccommend whats called an MSRP, Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price. Its up to the individual retailer to decide what price they want to sell the products for . Its why Amazon is almost always several dollars cheaper on new releases and why you'll find varying amounts from store to store. As far as Target, what you got wasnt a price drop; they put the game on clearance. Bc their gaming space is limited, they often put games on clearance rather quickly to free up space for newer title. This is not standard across all Target stores as you might find a game $20 in one location and then $40 in another. Those are YMMV and are set based on the manager's discretion for the individual store

 

[amazingfantasy15]

, 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"

Video games are a luxury item, which means they aren't a necessity to live.

Also, say you buy Madden 2010 at a garage sale, yes, EA got there money once for the game. When you bought it though, they got nothing, they're not trying to charge someone twice for the same game, they're trying to charge everyone that buys the game once and they aren't even charging you for single player, just online multiplayer. While it does suck for people who use Gamefly or borrow games, I don't see the reason for outrage over people trying to save a couple bucks buying used. Of course EA wants a piece of the pie and they're only going after that piece if they want online stuff, single player will always be 100% fully intact.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

Publishers dont set the prices unless an item is bought directly through them. They reccommend whats called an MSRP, Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price. Its up to the individual retailer to decide what price they want to sell the products for . Its why Amazon is almost always several dollars cheaper on new releases and why you'll find varying amounts from store to store. As far as Target, what you got wasnt a price drop; they put the game on clearance. Bc their gaming space is limited, they often put games on clearance rather quickly to free up space for newer title. This is not standard across all Target stores as you might find a game $20 in one location and then $40 in another. Those are YMMV and are set based on the manager's discretion for the individual store

Or it's a sale designed to get you in the store and hoping you'll buy some other stuff when you get in there. They're most likely losing money on the game, but if you buy some batteries or speaker wire, maybe some new clothes they make the money back. Any game being sold below $60 for PS3 or 360 and $50 for Wii is usually just to get you to a place to buy more.

 

[eternalinferno]

it pisses me off for the same reason I would get pissed off at stuff like what capcom pulled with versus mode, they're locking out content already on the disc and making you pay more to access it

 

[Havok83]

Or it's a sale designed to get you in the store and hoping you'll buy some other stuff when you get in there. They're most likely losing money on the game, but if you buy some batteries or speaker wire, maybe some new clothes they make the money back. Any game being sold below $60 for PS3 or 360 and $50 for Wii is usually just to get you to a place to buy more.

Its not a sale. Its strictly done to clear the inventory to make space for new stuff. Sales imply that its a temprorary price cut that will go back to the original price. Sales are also advertised to get you into the store. When Target marks its games down on clearance, they are thrown off to the side, in a pile with all the other clearance stuff in that department. Clearance items are also stuff they will no longer carry in the store and whatever is left is it. Games on sale will have their stock replenished

 

[Addendum]

Video games are a luxury item, which means they aren't a necessity to live.

Also, say you buy Madden 2010 at a garage sale, yes, EA got there money once for the game. When you bought it though, they got nothing, they're not trying to charge someone twice for the same game, they're trying to charge everyone that buys the game once and they aren't even charging you for single player, just online multiplayer. While it does suck for people who use Gamefly or borrow games, I don't see the reason for outrage over people trying to save a couple bucks buying used. Of course EA wants a piece of the pie and they're only going after that piece if they want online stuff, single player will always be 100% fully intact.

Game makers are entitled to the same amount of money from second-hand game sales that car makers are entitled to from used car sales, or book publishers and writers are entitled to from used book sales.

Nothing.

 

[marvelman2006]

Game makers are entitled to the same amount of money from second-hand game sales that car makers are entitled to from used car sales, or book publishers and writers are entitled to from used book sales.

Nothing.

thank god finally someone agrees with me. I cant believe some people are ok with this tactic from EA. Its like what if fox and james cameron want to charge me to have access to bluray live on a used avatar bluray, its just stupid and a ploy to rip people off. I really dont see how anyone could be happy with something like this. call it "well its business" or "its there right" but the bottom line is there just shacking us down.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

it pisses me off for the same reason I would get pissed off at stuff like what capcom pulled with versus mode, they're locking out content already on the disc and making you pay more to access it

I agree on that point. I think this move sucks because they're essentially double-charging used game buyers for content that should be readily available on the disc. Same reason I hate DLC that was obviously just cropped out of the main game.

But at the same time, it is entirely within their rights as the publishers of the game to try and ensure they get the most bang for their buck. Or, I guess, the most bucks for their bang. None of us actually need video games, so it's not like they're somehow oppressing us with this new game/MP surcharge setup. It's a crappy business practice that I find personally deplorable, but it's still perfectly valid given that every business puts a product out with the sole intention of making as much money as possible off it.

 

[Fading]

Game makers are entitled to the same amount of money from second-hand game sales that car makers are entitled to from used car sales, or book publishers and writers are entitled to from used book sales.

Nothing.

Honestly, I agree. Video games seem to be held in some weird spot away from any other product. Politicians think they should be regulated in manners not only unconstitutional, but in a way that other similar form of entertainment would never be subjected to. On the reverse side the gamers and developers think used games should be treated differently than used movies, or books, or TV's, or Car's, or toy's, or a million other things.

Again, I agree with others that I want game developers to do well, for the employees to be able to feed their families and so on. However, when someone goes and buys a used DVD at a store, or a yard sale, no outrage is shown. However Gamestop seems to be the most evil entity in that gaming world for some reason. Ppl seem to act like Gamestop forces you to buy their games, or that every used game is $55. It's just rediculous. Gamestop (and no I don't work there, no they're not paying me, I just happen to think the Gamestop hate is over the top) is just an outlet that if you want to, and need the money, you can unload a game you have utterly no intention of playing again. Then someone else who is on a limited income and may not be able to purchase a new game, or is just generally iffy on a title anyway, sees the lower price, and thinks what the hell, can purchase that used game.

Again, why used game trade is evil, and used movie trade isn't is baffling. Why gamers put up with DRM, $10 on top of the game cost fees per console, internet connectivity requirements, and half assed games coming out and releasing content that should have been in the final product is beyond me as well. Meanwhile movie watchers would burn the corporations who did that to movies to the ground if they ever tried it and it'd be all over the news. Why are gamers so eager to get **** on, and champion said ****ting. How is renting a game different from renting a movie? How is buying a used game different from buying a used movie or book? I'd really like to know why gamers get so up in arms in defending greedy tactics.



(Yes, things like this bother me. Mainly because I know that the more gamers welcome this crap the greedier and more bold the developers will get. Crap like this would be far more likely to cause another video game crash rather than actual bad gaming products themselves would.)


Edit - BTW wanted to say I agree with Corp. It is a luxury item, and they do have the right to do so no matter how I feel about it.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Honestly, I just can't musher the anger or the sympathy for gamer's in this one. To me, both sides are equal evils. Sure, there's corporate greed here, but there's also a lot of gamer's, probably several of you who have such a strong sense of entitlement, who have been throwing tickets in the used game market not realizing, or just flat out not caring, that you are no longer supporting the people making them.

Anyway, outside occasional exceptions, waiting a couple of months you can find new copies of games cheaper through general price reduction or sales. If this stuff is important, buy new, if not, keep buying used. If this is a huge principle issue for you, stop buying all EA products used and new; it's the only way you can realistically send a message.

 

[Fading]

Truth be told, it's very rarely I even buy a used game, and I certainly don't play EA sports games. So really, this won't affect me. It's not even an entitlement issue. I know that the developers have the right to do whatever they want with their product, and if I don't like it I don't have to buy it. My problem is with the larger picture.

EA certainly isn't the first to do this. Ubisoft wasn't the first to have awful DRM. It's just a growing trend of big names in the gaming industry taking bolder and bolder steps and getting welcomed with open arms. The day gaming becomes an utter headache to enjoy is probably the day I'll stop gaming altogether and find another pass time. It just sucks because gaming has just been all kinds of awesome lately and I hate seeing this scales effect of the positive being balanced out by a greedy negative side.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Well, as long as you buy the game new it doesn't sound like you'll have any headaches from this move. The whole DRM is a different beast all together and, I assure you, it was not welcomed with open arms. Even today there's still a lot of controversy surrounding it.

Sure, some of this is greed, but as I said, both sides have their evils. It's as much a reaction to the growing used game market, a market that does not support the companies making these games that gamers are throwing into. You can call up other industries, but in the end, that doesn't matter. As I said before, if those industries could find a way to realistically combat used sales, I guarantee they would try in some form, if they haven't tried something already.

As I said before, I do put myself against this move and all, but to me it looks like there's equal evils and rationalizations for both sides. I just can't join in the whole 'down with the man' thing this time around

 

[KALEL114]

What about people like me that can't afford to get new games everytime they come out? I have to use Gamefly to play games these days. Nothing is evil about that. EA is making tons of money. Example: They sold over 5 million copies of Madden 2010 last year. Lets make the average game price new at $45.00 and you do the math. They made their money and now they want to take some from me. They do not need the used game market to support them at all.

 

[marvelman2006]

Its sad idots like EA are so fat with money to the point there are out of touch with the economy and fanbase, and just sit around thinking of how they can make more money. yet Im sure all EAs emplyees get free copies of all new games so its no skin off there back..

I got a letter from stephen king the other night he told me I have to pay him an extra $10 to read chapters 4-10 in a book I got from my neighbors yard sale.

 

[Timstuff]

EA currently gets nothing from used game sales. I don't think the goal of this is to kill the used game market, but rather to indirectly force used game retailers to give them a cut of the profits from reselling used games. Right now, Gamestop sells used games for $55 shortly after the release window. That means that the customer saves $5, and the retailer gets pure profit while the publisher gets none.

If EA's system works out the way I think it will, then that means that in order to remain competitive, a store like Gamestop will have to either lower the price on used games to $45 since the online activation isn't included, and optionally/or include the activation with the purchase which means giving EA $10 when they sell the game.

I am not against the existence of a used game market. In fact, I think it's very important since it allows people to get money back on games they don't play, and it allows people to buy older or rarer titles that have gone out of print. I think EA's new system could potentially work out very well. Gamestop can still sell used games, the customer can still save $5 by buying used, and EA stops losing money to the used game market. Everyone wins-- well, except the used game retailer, whose profits will go down a bit from this, but they'll still be making enough money to stay open.

 

[Tron Bonne]

What about people like me that can't afford to get new games everytime they come out? I have to use Gamefly to play games these days. Nothing is evil about that. EA is making tons of money. Example: They sold over 5 million copies of Madden 2010 last year. Lets make the average game price new at $45.00 and you do the math. They made their money and now they want to take some from me. They do not need the used game market to support them at all.

If all these things are that important to you I would say wait a couple of months. Outside some exceptations, you can always find a title marked down or on sale. For example, Darksiders came out early January and I happened to see it at Wal-Mart for $29.99 earlier today. Just three or four months later and it's basically budget price. I also saw Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time for $39.99 around December on sale for Christmas, and you can find it for that price fairly easily now as another good example. Tekken 6 was on sale for $19.99 no more than two months after it hit shelves from one of Amazon's Goldbox sales. And etc.

And when I said evil, I wasn't being literal, but each side has its negative points. Yeah, partially it's something encased with corporate greed, but it's also something of wanting to get what a company traditionally gets from a sale. I also understand wanting to save some money, but it also comes to the fact that you're no longer supporting them.

If you simply can't afford games and can only rent based on budget, I think you fall into the category of people who actually have a legit claim to be against this, because the companies are making royalities from rentals if I'm not mistaken.

Now, as I said, I am against this, but at the same time, I can see both points of views, both the positive and the negative aspects of each.

Its sad idots like EA are so fat with money to the point there are out of touch with the economy and fanbase, and just sit around thinking of how they can make more money. yet Im sure all EAs emplyees get free copies of all new games so its no skin off there back..

Yeah, I bet they are out of touch with a fanbase that doesn't really support them

EA currently gets nothing from used game sales. I don't think the goal of this is to kill the used game market, but rather to indirectly force used game retailers to give them a cut of the profits from reselling used games. Right now, Gamestop sells used games for $55 shortly after the release window. That means that the customer saves $5, and the retailer gets pure profit while the publisher gets none.

If EA's system works out the way I think it will, then that means that in order to remain competitive, a store like Gamestop will have to either lower the price on used games to $45 since the online activation isn't included, and optionally/or include the activation with the purchase which means giving EA $10 when they sell the game.

I am not against the existence of a used game market. In fact, I think it's very important since it allows people to get money back on games they don't play, and it allows people to buy older or rarer titles that have gone out of print. I think EA's new system could potentially work out very well. Gamestop can still sell used games, the customer can still save $5 by buying used, and EA stops losing money to the used game market. Everyone wins-- well, except the used game retailer, whose profits will go down a bit from this, but they'll still be making enough money to stay open.

When I said combat the used market I didn't neccessarily mean take it fully or anything, just a way to either curb people from buying into as much, or spawn something like this

 

[Addendum]

EA currently gets nothing from used game sales. I don't think the goal of this is to kill the used game market, but rather to indirectly force used game retailers to give them a cut of the profits from reselling used games. Right now, Gamestop sells used games for $55 shortly after the release window. That means that the customer saves $5, and the retailer gets pure profit while the publisher gets none.

If EA's system works out the way I think it will, then that means that in order to remain competitive, a store like Gamestop will have to either lower the price on used games to $45 since the online activation isn't included, and optionally/or include the activation with the purchase which means giving EA $10 when they sell the game.

I am not against the existence of a used game market. In fact, I think it's very important since it allows people to get money back on games they don't play, and it allows people to buy older or rarer titles that have gone out of print. I think EA's new system could potentially work out very well. Gamestop can still sell used games, the customer can still save $5 by buying used, and EA stops losing money to the used game market. Everyone wins-- well, except the used game retailer, whose profits will go down a bit from this, but they'll still be making enough money to stay open.

EA isn't not owed ANYTHING from the used game market. No matter if it's from Gamestop, a sale online, or a friend selling a game to his buddy for a few bucks.

 

[Fading]

Well, as long as you buy the game new it doesn't sound like you'll have any headaches from this move. The whole DRM is a different beast all together and, I assure you, it was not welcomed with open arms. Even today there's still a lot of controversy surrounding it.

Sure, some of this is greed, but as I said, both sides have their evils. It's as much a reaction to the growing used game market, a market that does not support the companies making these games that gamers are throwing into. You can call up other industries, but in the end, that doesn't matter. As I said before, if those industries could find a way to realistically combat used sales, I guarantee they would try in some form, if they haven't tried something already.

As I said before, I do put myself against this move and all, but to me it looks like there's equal evils and rationalizations for both sides. I just can't join in the whole 'down with the man' thing this time around

I know the Ubisoft deal was very controversial and hated. I worded it wrongly when I said welcomed with open arms. I just meant that as I was looking around on Google reading up on the story after I learned about it, at each and every site there was a staunch group of defenders cheering Ubisoft on and defending their DRM. I guess instead of saying welcomed with open arms, I should have said that a very vocal, but much smaller group of defenders met the haters at every turn. If you were an Ubisoft employee and saw ppl strongly defending your DRM on popular sites, you might get the impression that it's not as badly received as you imagined.

 

[Fading]

EA isn't not owed ANYTHING from the used game market. No matter if it's from Gamestop, a sale online, or a friend selling a game to his buddy for a few bucks.

The law is definitely on the side of the ppl who re-sell their games (whether it be Craigslist or a friend to another friend). If game developers could legally go after places like Gamestop or eBay for used game sales they would, but they can't legally. As much as I'd like to see developers do great and have more money to produce better games and pay their employees, I also don't want to ever be told what I can do with the product I bought from them. If I buy that plastic disk and want to burn it, I can legally. If there ever came a day they could walk in my house and stop me from loaning a game to a friend, it'd be a very sad day for consumer freedoms.

While you're not purchasing the rights to that product (such as trademarks and so on), you are purchasing that physical item itself and rights to do what you will with it. Which is why this is shady to me as EA is dancing around that. No, they're not telling you you can't let your friend borrow that copy of that game you bought. However they are telling you that they are blocking half the game you just bought and that you have to use your one time code to unlock that other half of the game. Then anyone who uses it after (assuming they're not playing on your console or account) has to buy a new code to unlock part of the complete product. Then on top of that they're not lowering the price considering they basically are selling you half a product at full product price with a one time free addmission code.

I'm personally not going to get burned on this. I just have a problem with this on more of a consumer rights level. Used game sales are not evil nor the end of the industry. In fact, I would never have bought Disgaea 3 without it setting on a Gamestop shelf for under $30. I loved it, and now, I plan on buying Disgaea 4 new, win/win for the Disgaea developers.



Edit - BTW, sorry for posting so many walls of text on this issue. This is pretty much that last of my comments on this issue, not really anything else I can say on it.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Did any of these companies ever think that the reason people buy used games is because new games are so ****ing expensive? Make new games $10 cheaper and I'll be more inclined to buy new. How about that instead of stuff like DRM, codes, or this?

 

[Havok83]

I dont get why this is such a huge issue now bc used games has always been around for as long as Ive been playing them. Its not like its something new that just popped up in recent years. The biggest used game retailer is Gamestop and all the publishers cater to it and help it stay in business, offering it exclusive preorder bonuses, bundles, special editions, etc...

 

[Tron Bonne]

It's always been an issue, but I think it's snowballed a lot in the recent years. I mean, as I said, take a look at some of the profit margins GS had from their used games sales. Really, I think it was an inevitability that these companies were going to try and combat in some form.