EA: No consumer backlash to Online Pass

By Fred Dutton Published 15 September, 2010

"People realise bandwidth isn't free."

EA's controversial Online Pass scheme has gone down well with consumers, the US giant's insisted.

"The reception of the program has been positive," claimed EA chief financial officer Eric Brown, at the Deutsche Bank 2010 Technology Conference in San Francisco last night.

"We thought about [Online Pass] pretty carefully and there hasn't been any significant push-back from the consumer, because I think people realise that if you're buying a physical disc and it requires an attachment to someone else's network and servers, [those] people realise bandwidth isn't free.

"So the fact that we're diffusing or covering online costs is not viewed to be unreasonable. We're well into this program and there is no consumer backlash."

Launched earlier this year, the scheme asks consumers purchasing used games to spend an additional $10 to access the online portion of some of EA's sports titles.

All new copies of the relevant games ship with a single-use code allowing users to access this for free, but lock that access to the user's console.

Brown also estimated that used games now make up 20 per cent of all game sales, with an obvious adverse effect on publishers, who see no return from the purchases.

In May, Ubisoft CFO Alain Martinez announced plans during a financial conference call to launch a similar scheme. "Most of the games we are releasing next year will have from the start downloadable content available, and we are looking very carefully at what is happening with EA regarding what we are calling the $10 solution, and will probably be following that line sometime in the future."

Picture of Fred.

About Fred Dutton

Fred Dutton is Eurogamer's US news editor, based in Washington DC.

Read more articles from Fred by visiting the Fred Dutton archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (46) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • KRadiation #1 2 years ago

    Bandwidth isn't free - but if you sell 1 copy of a game... and that person keeps the disc forever and uses the online. They only need to cover that 1 person.

    If the owner trades it in, and some one else buys the disc and uses online.. the server is still only going to be handling 1 user.

    So no extra bandwidth needed.

  • eddiep #2 2 years ago

    You do realize a single person will use less bandwidth than N persons playing the game one after the other, don't you ? :)
    (the interest for multiplayer will be constant instead of dwindling at some point)

  • Paperghost #3 2 years ago

    i remember this being originally promoted as "consumers love the idea of getting premium content for the extra money".

    now its "consumers need to understand bandwidth isn't free".

    next it'll be "it sucks but we're doing it anyway. cya".

  • bad09 #4 2 years ago

    @KRadiation

    I was thinking the same thing :)

  • User10110 #5 2 years ago

    @KRadiation

    an excellent point - presumably they will be refunding that 10 dollars to the original purchaser of the game as they are no longer using the bandwidth - minus an administration fee of course

  • GamesConnoisseur #6 2 years ago

    One copy of game still uses one portion of bandwidth... Very crystal clear I agree, so EA should instead be honest and say that this is the most effective means of clawing back income from second hand sales.

    As we know publishers are forever in anguish about not getting payback for all efforts within second hand markets, which trade in retailers are profiting from for acting as swop shop.

    I m fine about this as in prinicple it's fair enough if within reasonable pricing and gamers can opts to avoid online or plunges in.

  • GamesConnoisseur #7 2 years ago

    One copy of game still uses one portion of bandwidth... Very crystal clear I agree, so EA should instead be honest and say that this is the most effective means of clawing back income from second hand sales.

    As we know publishers are forever in anguish about not getting payback for all efforts within second hand markets, which trade in retailers are profiting from for acting as swop shop.

    I m fine about this as in prinicple it's fair enough if within reasonable pricing and gamers can opts to avoid online or plunges in.

  • arcam #8 2 years ago

    Project $10 to diffuse online costs? But yesterday Peter Moore said it was to encourage online play? Now I don't know who to believe!

  • bladdard #9 2 years ago

    EA have a vested interest in destroying the used video game market and this is their tactic. I just wish they'd fess up rather than spouting utter drivel everytime they bring up the subject.

    *edit* Also what happens when everyone stops playing the game and they take the servers down, does everyone get their $10's refunded?
    Edited by bladdard at 15/09/10 @ 09:34

  • ybfelix #10 2 years ago

    Does this kind of game come with a stick says online access restricted to one console? I think it should be so.

  • InfiniteFury #11 2 years ago

    Just playing devil's advocate for a moment. Presumably EA - or any other publisher for that matter - make estimates about server capacity requirements based on a player's likely online attachment to a game.

    If that estimate was (to pull a figure out of my arse) 6 months before it's resold and then someone plays for 3 months, 6 months, whatever then that is unfunded additional server capacity without compensation to the publisher.

    /feels dirty for defending this.

  • darkmorgado #12 2 years ago

    As we know publishers are forever in anguish about not getting payback for all efforts within second hand markets

    If you were losing 20% of your revenue, you would be too.

  • metalangel #13 2 years ago

    Yeah bandwidth isn't free, that's why I pay for Xbox Live Gold.

    I don't see why we should have to compensate EA because they decided they needed their own layer of servers, usernames and other shit as well.

  • KRadiation #14 2 years ago

    RE: InfiniteFury

    That's a fair point. Though my experiences with most online games is they usually UNDER estimate server needs and the first week of a big online title is full of lag and connection problems.

  • arcam #15 2 years ago

    If you were losing 20% of your revenue, you would be too.

    Source?

  • randompanda #16 2 years ago

    I understand why people are so opposed to it, because they're now having to pay for things they didn't previously have to pay for, but honestly - considering how quickly the price on most games drop now - especially with shopto, buying new isn't such an unrealistic option for anyone if they're willing to be patient.

    It's going to be people who use LoveFilm who feel the brunt of this the most though. It'll effectively kill games rentals.

  • Mr_Brown #17 2 years ago

    Oh thanks EA for telling us bandwidth isn't free maybe hats why I pay for the Internet and xbox live every month. Obviously it's not enough as I'm not paying you. Though to be honest if you didn't insist on using your own shite servers you wouldn't need to charge.

  • Praetorianer #18 2 years ago

    Maybe the 2nd hand market will be history sooner than later, at least in the US. From what I got, depending on the terms of the EULA, 2nd hand sales could be prohibited, if the end user is stated to be a licensee, rather than an owner of a given software.

    [link url=http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2010/09/13/autodesk_software_sale_restriction_ruling/
    ]http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2010/09...[/link]

  • arcam #19 2 years ago

    I'm against the Online Pass as much as anyone, but it won't kill game rentals unless you rent the same game multiple times.

    Do I need to purchase an Online Pass when I rent a game?
    Each Xbox LIVE gamertag or Sony PSN ID is entitled to a free 7 day trial per title. Beyond that, users will be required to redeem or purchase Online Pass access.

    [link url=http://www.easports.com/onlinepass
    ]http://www.easports.com/onlinepass
    [/link]

  • DwarfyP #20 2 years ago

    @arcam If you were losing 20% of your revenue, you would be too.
    Source?

    Erm... The article itself?!?!

  • chrisjm #21 2 years ago

    whats to say 1 person keeping the game forever is going to use less bandwidth than 4 people using the same disk.
    have you seen how many plays some people rack on on games like halo, cod until a sequal comes out.

    so is it a slipperly slope of a few cents per match, then creeping up to a dollar etc etc?

  • neems #22 2 years ago

    What bandwidth are we talking about here? Very few console games have actual hosting, so in most cases it will simply be matchmaking / online leaderboards / stats etc. EA's bandwidth costs for certain titles are probably lower than mine (per unit).

    If publishers are going to start charging console gamers for bandwidth, then they should start providing dedicated servers. Simple. Perhaps they could also modify the utterly retarded stat gathering aspect of BC2, which insists on communicating with EA for half a minute if I add a server to my favourites, or lose connection a minute into a game.

  • jidnffc #23 2 years ago

    Does it lock to the console or the gamertag/psnid? What if you have two consoles in the same house? Can you use it on both?

  • metalangel #24 2 years ago

    @DwarfyP: In that case, they've been "losing revenue" since forming in 1982 yet preowned sales didn't cause them to go bankrupt over the course of those 28 years.

    They are only doing this out of greed, and because they can. Preowned games and "lost revenue" are just the bullshit excuses they feed to idiots to try and disguise their greed.

  • arcam #25 2 years ago

    Someone please explain how "Brown also estimated that used games now make up 20 per cent of all game sales" means the same thing as "EA are losing 20% of their revenue".

  • trevd72 #26 2 years ago

    i agree with metalangel and call bullshit on the whole thing. This may just be the reason I do not buy Medal of Honor. I love online BF:BC2 but that whole $10 rubbish just did not pan out and the support for that game has stopped with only paid for content on the horizon. We never did get our money's worth from that lie. GRRRR

  • Katanax #27 2 years ago

    For me, the issue is a joke.

    Whilst development and production cost for other forms of media (from print through to movies) is arguably a lot less than it is in the creation of games, you don't see (or at least I haven't) any of the big studios whinging about me picking up a copy of a film 2nd hand, or a book publisher filing lawsuits when I purchase a first edition on eBay.

    For that matter, when purchasing antiques how can you put a value on the time and dedication an individual invested to gain the talent and skill to produce whatever the artefact is? I never hear stories of estates banning art collectors viewing the pieces they've bought until they've paid a charge to cover themselves and any of their friends they may want to show them too.

    You've published and distributed x hundred thousand copies of a title, therefore you know exactly how much profit you potentially expect to get back (assuming you've not pumped half the money into creating a shoddy title and the other half into the marketing budget). Everything else, surprisingly, *like* everything else in this world, is fair game.

    It's worth bearing in mind that it is the content, whether it be purchased first or second hand, still promotes the developer and the publisher whilst building the brand and the IP, potentially influencing a future day one purchase from those who become fans of a series.

    If you want to stop the trade of second hand games, make the games we buy worth keeping in my bookcase rather than on the shelf of a second hand distributor.

    All about lazy business models and greed, reducing development costs in creating exceptional content and they know exactly what they're doing.

  • Sunyavadin #28 2 years ago

    In related news, no backlash from women in Islamic countries to oppressive sharia law. "Women realise they aren't supposed to be free".

    Easy solution EA - remove your unnecessary servers.
    Oh wait, that excuse for wanting the money was a lie, gotcha.

  • lucky_jim #29 2 years ago

    Everyone wants to keep arguing this point using metaphors, but just look at the facts. Dead Space and Mirror's Edge were both excellent games from EA based on new IP. They pretty much tanked in terms of new retail sales, but the people who did buy them traded them in when they'd completed them, and EA's figures (which are pretty accurate now that most consoles are online) show that, in Dead Space's case, half the sales were used.

    I don't know about you, but I want EA to continue making quality games with original IP. Despite all the bleating about originality and quality that goes on on boards like this one, it seems most gamers are reluctant to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to original titles. If EA need to do this to keep themselves from turning back into an Activision-style shit-factory like they used to be, so be it.

  • Sunworship #30 2 years ago

    Thing is it's not their revenue: they might be happy to imagine that it is with the help of some pie charts but back in the real world it's a used product being sold by someone else at a different price using someone else's retail setup. Until they start renting games out instead of selling them they can get tae f***.

    This kind of false recategorising is the staple of politicians and ceo's. The people really at fault here are the journalists who publish these sophistries without giving a balancing viewpoint. Have the comments in blogs become the last bastion of truth in journalism?

  • ruined #31 2 years ago

    I hear the "this wasn't a problem in the 80s/90s " argument a lot on these threads but surely the posters realise that until recently pre-owned was restricted to ebay and shops like Computer Exchange so were a small percentage.

    These days every retailer does it because they have potential to make more money on that than on new game sales.

    You go into a game store these days and from the moment you cross the threshold to the moment you pay for your game you are surrounded by posters, stickers and prompts from sales staff to get a pre-owned copy for £5 less.

    You can kind of understand why suddenly publishers are worried.

  • Xboxfanuk #32 2 years ago

    Here is a thought. What if every person paid EA to play their game? Problem solved.

  • metalangel #33 2 years ago

    @luckyjim: Have a look at EA's forthcoming releases (list in their Wikipedia entry). Apart from Bulletstorm, EVERYTHING is a sequel or part of an established "brand".

    I am not going to give them money just in case they decide they might feel like making more original IPs in future.

    Certainly they've had well over a year with the Project Ten Dorrah revenue and the games haven't improved.

  • Skurmedel #34 2 years ago

    So if I buy their game, I have to pay for other people buying it second hand, like they should be able to. Wow it all makes sense to me. I think they need to ask their consumers again.

    It's only in the game publishing business this is a giant problem apparently, because it has no logic. Sony don't put unlock codes in their stereo equipment to keep it from being resold. Neither does blurays or DVDs catch fire when resold.

    10 years from now the IKEA tables will self-destruct when they change owners.
    Edited by Skurmedel at 15/09/10 @ 12:23

  • arcam #35 2 years ago

    What if every person paid EA to play their game?

    The question is, if I buy FIFA 11 from a shop, is it still EA's game or is it mine?

  • linksdad #36 2 years ago

    Brown also estimated that used games now make up 20 per cent of all game sales, with an obvious adverse effect on publishers, who see no return from the purchases.

    Why is this so obvious, surely a 25% larger market has a for more positive effect on a market than negative?

    How obvious is the efforct of the loss of try before you buy renters and the presence of games in rental shops?

  • RobTheBuilder #37 2 years ago

    Correct EA. It isn't free, I pay £40 a year for XBL.

    EA keep getting confused about the reasons for this, because its simple. It's all about money.

  • old_skool #38 2 years ago

    I know of alot of people that sell their used games and use the money to fund new games purchases. Stopping the 2nd hand market will obviously reduce the money for new game purchases. If this happens the people who will suffer will likely be devs with cutbacks and closures and gamers with less variety of content and a focus on existing IP's will be the slogan of the day.

    EA is shooting itself in the foot.

  • waggy79 #39 2 years ago

    "because I think people realise that if you're buying a physical disc and it requires an attachment to someone else's network and servers, [those] people realise bandwidth isn't free."

    Quite right EA, bandwidth isnt free. Thats why I pay for it every month. Why should I pay you too?

  • dingo75 #40 2 years ago

    So I can take $10 off my next EA purchase as I'm not interested in playing online mostly?
    Would be fair: Pay less if you don't play online.

  • GarethBale3 #41 2 years ago

    Old Skool is spot on.

    I know many people that are the same especially with the HMV replay store card deal. I do not do this myself as I'm always on catch up. However there are many people that use second hand sales as a way to fund there release purchases.

    Taking away the second hand market will result in these people being very picky and perhaps half the amount of release day purchases they make over the year.

    The people that buy a lot of second hand games will then just wait for their games to be sold on line cheaper a month after release or even longer for GOTY edition with all the added DLC.

    I can guarantee release day sales will decline if this does happen.

    Electronic Assholes



  • hazelam #42 2 years ago

    what a bunch of bullshit.
    they got paid for each and every one of those preowned copies, there's only one user using it at a time, they'd prefer it was gathering dust on a shelf rather than somebody else enjoy it?

    and bandwidth?
    the bandwidth that the users provide 99% of by hosting your shitty fucking games?
    that bandwidth?
    your useless servers tell our machines where to find other players and then they play no further part, and they can barely fucking do that properly.

    i swear with the greed of this industry growing all the time piracy is looking like a more attractive option in principal.
    i'd consider pirating the games and then not even playing them just to fuck over ea like they've been fucking over the users year after year with their identikit sequels.

    it'll be a long time before i ever buy an ea game new again that's for sure.


    and as for no consumer backlash, that's like saying everybody loved the poll tax.

    i swear this has made me so fucking mad.

  • RobTheBuilder #43 2 years ago

    Good points folks.

    Let's not forget that with a new Fifa every year, the people buying Fifa 10 second hand are more likely to buy Fifa 11 new.

  • GarethBale3 #44 2 years ago

    Also does this mean EA will support their on line gaming servers longer for each release? I doubt it.

    I remember when I finally got round to playing skate last year I was not allowed to upload any footage. I was not bothered about the skate celeb cheevo but I had purchased the game brand new for £10 in a HMV sale!

    We all pay for Xbox live for the on line experience yet pieces can be taken away without your knowledge. I think Skate 2 may of been out for some time but it is still cheeky taking away a feature of a game just because I was slow to play it.

    you cant have it both ways if I'm expected to keep all my games then I want EA to forever support the servers even if no one uses them as fairs fair IMO.

  • hazelam #45 2 years ago

    oh yeah, better cut ea some slack, they got a couple of adulterous douchebag sports stars to pay.

  • kosigan #46 2 years ago

    They're doing it because:
    a) People will pay for it
    b) It's money for nothing
    c) They can

    Simples.