EA sports to lock out multiplayer in used games

[Hush]

You guys do realize that when you buy a used game that they come with two warranties right, one is 30 days for any deffective issues and the other is 7 days costumer satisfaction thats why the company up charges. That and profit.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Some GameStops don't accept returns of used games after 7 days no matter what. In fact, one GameStop almost wouldn't let me return a game because they said it was 8 days (bought it on a Wednesday, went to return it the following Wednesday).

 

[Tron Bonne]

I rest my case. I dont see how anyone can defend gamestop or EA sports in this situation. This is american greed at its finest, pure and simple. nothing more then one franchise trying to get over on another.

No, it isn't. This really is not an EA vs GS thing that people seem to want to make it. Geez, I should have never used that GS example.

 

[Addendum]

It's simply a company wanting money that they're not entitled to

 

[Tron Bonne]

Probably more a company wanting to lessen the field that attribute to sales that make that money they aren't entitled to.

 

[Addendum]

If a person decides to sell something of theirs second-hand (be it a video game, TV, books, CDs, DVDs, clothing, a car, a computer, etc) they are entitled to that money. And if that purchaser decides to resell that item later, they are entitled to that money.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Not disagreeing, but I don't think anyone is really arguing that

 

[Addendum]

So why can't video game makers deal with the used game market? They're no different than any other field with items sold second-hand.

 

[Tron Bonne]

This is a way they (or, at least, one of them) are dealing with the used game market. Other markets and industries would be doing similar things if they had the means and tools to do so, guaranteed.

Plus, as you said earlier, you really only approach this from a customer angle, so you're cutting out any real counterpoint regardless

 

[Addendum]

I don't think it is guaranteed, since book publishers do not have buyers of used books pay a fee to access more chapters. While buyers of used cars miss out on the initial warranty the auto maker provides, they do not have to pay a fee to have the power steering available for use (if the car they purchase has it).

 

[Tron Bonne]

I don't think it is guaranteed, since book publishers do not have buyers of used books pay a fee to access more chapters. While buyers of used cars miss out on the initial warranty the auto maker provides, they do not have to pay a fee to have the power steering available for use (if the car they purchase has it).

How could they realistically enforce those policies, though? Go to every used book store in the world and rip out pages of books? Go to find every used car and somehow disable the steering capabilities? None of that could be reinforced properly and would probably cost those companies a pretty good amount (maybe even more than they'd save in the long run).

 

[Addendum]

And based on that, I don't see the difference with used game sales.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Based on what...?

 

[Addendum]

What we've been talking about.

There is no difference between buying a used game, as to buying a used car, a used book, a used DVD, a used CD, used clothing...

 

[Tron Bonne]

EDIT: Nevermind

 

[marvelman2006]

No, it isn't. This really is not an EA vs GS thing that people seem to want to make it. Geez, I should have never used that GS example.

Im not saying EA vs GS but when GS is pretty much the main used game seller next to online options then we can use that model, its not a bad thing. Like I said this is corporate greed at its finest, people see a booming industry in tough economic times and they want to get the biggest piece of the pie possible. But in this like others have stated EA and other developers are not entitled to those second hand used game sales, Im sorry they just arent. the whole process is once you buy something it is yours to do whatever with, EA or anyone for that matter has no right to keep looking over someones shoulder to see what there doing with product they bought. Anyone that doesnt see this as greed is blind.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Yeah, okay, no one is saying or arguing that EA or any other company is entitled to profits from used game sales; I'm not even sure how we shifted to that. This is EA trying to stop people from buying used games and find ways to compensate for used sales, not necessarily trying to get profits from actual used game sales (though striking a deal with GS in that department may be a possibility, but I doubt that's the outright goal), but it's more about stopping more games from entering that field at all.

You call me blind, yet I've acknowledged the greed aspect in this thread already, but I also acknowledged the other sides of this argument, and there are other sides, but you and others seem to refuse to believe there are; that's blindness.

 

[Addendum]

No company can stop people from spending their money how they choose.

 

[El Santo]

THQ joins the "we hate gamers" club.

http://www.destructoid.com/ufc-undisputed-2010-requires-code-to-play-online-174080.phtml

 

[Spidey-Bat]

The good thing about all of this ******** is it is going to help me give up video games easier.

 

[Fading]

THQ joins the "we hate gamers" club.

http://www.destructoid.com/ufc-undisputed-2010-requires-code-to-play-online-174080.phtml

I guess new news of someone else is doing it is enough of a change that I can discuss it without going back on my word of being done with the discussion lol. I also read Ubisoft (no surprise given their horrible PC DRM) is getting on an the act in a similar way. Which is why I don't like this. It will not stop at EA, or at sports games, and possibly not even at $10 per everyone that plays it outside of the original owner (and even then sometimes the original owner, such as playing your online game at a friends house will cost you $10 if you didn't bring your console or your friend wants to log on as himself).

This is a way they (or, at least, one of them) are dealing with the used game market. Other markets and industries would be doing similar things if they had the means and tools to do so, guaranteed.

Plus, as you said earlier, you really only approach this from a customer angle, so you're cutting out any real counterpoint regardless

Actually they have, other industries that is, and they've failed legally. The first sales act was used (maybe created, not huge on knowing my legal acts lol) to combat Hollywood from trying to ban the ability to let stores rent their titles. The courts were on the side of the rental stores and users, and hence the first sales act is what it is today.

Even books tried this (which astonished me when I googled it just out of curiosity to see if they had). http://journal.bookfinder.com/right-of-first-sale/

Apparently there was a feature that read books aloud to you and an Author's guild tried to shut it down. The courts were against them. Then another author tried to sue Amazon for helping sell used copies of his books, and he got shut out by the courts as well.




It's not that others haven't tried, it's that they legally can't. When you purchase a product that first time, it's yours. If you want to give it to a friend, burn it, or sell it to Gamestop or eBay, you can legally. Now that Gamestop owns your old copy, if they want to they can sell it again, legally. It's their constitutional, legal, in the law books right. Game developers are not legally owed anything after that first sale, the first sales law says so.

EA, THQ, and maybe Ubisoft are trying to find a way to dance around that law without it becoming an illegal act. They have found a legal way to do this, but it doesn't make it less shady. It's still a buisness practice that achieves a goal that undermines a law without the practice itself being illegal.



Edited out my horrible analogy lol, and again sorry for the wall of text.

 

[marvelman2006]

Yeah, okay, no one is saying or arguing that EA or any other company is entitled to profits from used game sales; I'm not even sure how we shifted to that. This is EA trying to stop people from buying used games and find ways to compensate for used sales, not necessarily trying to get profits from actual used game sales (though striking a deal with GS in that department may be a possibility, but I doubt that's the outright goal), but it's more about stopping more games from entering that field at all.

You call me blind, yet I've acknowledged the greed aspect in this thread already, but I also acknowledged the other sides of this argument, and there are other sides, but you and others seem to refuse to believe there are; that's blindness.

- EA is the one who thinks there entitled to used game sales, thats how we got on that.

- well it is impossible to stop used games from entering the used game field, because thats what eventually happens, people get bored with games and want to sell them back or to a friend to make some quick cash.

- for the record I didnt say "Tron Bonne you are blind", I said "Anyone that doesnt see this as greed is blind."

- The whole point is you have a company trying to get profit on a situation they have no right to be in. once a copy of a new game is sold that is it the company got there money and now they move on. There isnt a law where they can make money off that same copy over and over again unless they have DLC then its a different story. I hate to do it but this situation IS THE SAME AS USED CARS, BOOKS, CD'S.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Actually they have, other industries that is, and they've failed legally. The first sales act was used (maybe created, not huge on knowing my legal acts lol) to combat Hollywood from trying to ban the ability to let stores rent their titles. The courts were on the side of the rental stores and users, and hence the first sales act is what it is today.

Even books tried this (which astonished me when I googled it just out of curiosity to see if they had). http://journal.bookfinder.com/right-of-first-sale/

Apparently there was a feature that read books aloud to you and an Author's guild tried to shut it down. The courts were against them. Then another author tried to sue Amazon for helping sell used copies of his books, and he got shut out by the courts as well.

It's not that others haven't tried, it's that they legally can't. When you purchase a product that first time, it's yours. If you want to give it to a friend, burn it, or sell it to Gamestop or eBay, you can legally. Now that Gamestop owns your old copy, if they want to they can sell it again, legally. It's their constitutional, legal, in the law books right. Game developers are not legally owed anything after that first sale, the first sales law says so.

EA, THQ, and maybe Ubisoft are trying to find a way to dance around that law without it becoming an illegal act. They have found a legal way to do this, but it doesn't make it less shady. It's still a buisness practice that achieves a goal that undermines a law without the practice itself being illegal.

You pretty much just proved my point whether you realized it or not. I never said they hadn't tried before, in fact I said earlier that these companies would try something to combat used sales, if they already haven't. Looks like they have, so it makes calling up other industries in this matter even more useless and irrelevant than before.

- for the record I didnt say "Tron Bonne you are blind", I said "Anyone that doesnt see this as greed is blind.

Anyway, I'm dropping out of this. Seems this argument has shifted to something about whether EA deserves profit from used games sales, when this really doesn't have that much to do directly with this matter. Looks like it's ran its course

 

[Grievous]

I don't purchase used games so I don't see how this well effect me. I still however think it's a mean move to make on people that don't have the money for brand new out of the crate games.