$10 for MP in pre-owned EA Sports titles

By Tom Bramwell Published 11 May, 2010

Must buy new to obtain "Online Pass".

EA Sports has revealed that its forthcoming PS3 and Xbox 360 titles will require players to enter a bundled "Online Pass" code in order to access "online services, features and bonus content" - including online multiplayer.

Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11, due out on 2nd July in Europe, will be the first game to include the Online Pass, which appears to be part of EA's Project Ten Dollar initiative to ward off second-hand game sales.

EA Sports senior VP Andrew Wilson put it bluntly in a website update: "We want to reserve EA Sports online services for people who pay EA to access them," he said. At the moment, publishers receive no money from second-hand game sales.

Should you buy Tiger Woods 11 - or other future EA Sports titles - second-hand, or rent them, you will still be able to access multiplayer features if you buy an Online Pass through PSN or Xbox Live for $10.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000. Follow him on Twitter.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (189) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • thenastypasty #1 2 years ago

    Can I be the first to say:


    SCREW YOU EA!

  • Shikasama #2 2 years ago

    I'll copy my post from the forum thread for any EA 'businessmen' reading this.

    Classic publisher logic.

    'Everyone who buys this game second hand would have bought it new if the opportunity wasn't there.'

    Er, no. I wouldn't.

    It's exactly the same publisher logic that says,

    'Everyone who pirates a game would have bought it if the opportunity wasn't there.'

    Er, no. I wouldn't.

    Not that this effects me too much anyway, the 360 will be my last console and I'll stick to MMO's on the PC in future. At least then you get the option of being treat like an idiot.

  • cianchristopher #3 2 years ago

    Cd keys for console games.

    Throw some SecuRom in there too, while you're at it EA!

  • BabyJesus #4 2 years ago

    Cash rules everything around me, CREAM get the money, Dolla dolla bill y'all.

  • GrumpyLlama #5 2 years ago

    I don't understand why the games industry thinks its different. You don't get publishers complaining about second hand book shops or BMW complaining about the second hand car market is damaging their sales. Taking out key features just seems childish and ultimately damages the industry. A bit like the music industry trying to sue all its customers.

  • DreadedWalrus #6 2 years ago

    I wonder how far they can push this before someone takes it to the courts? I'm not sure if there's any precedent in this area. I mean, it's not like film companies lock out the DVD extras on preowned DVDs unless you pay them money. To me this seems like taking advantage of the possibilities of the technology in order to screw the consumer.

  • wizlon #7 2 years ago

    Thing is, generally most people who buy 2nd had games are less bothered about on-line aspects of games. Most games deteriorate pretty fast in the multi-player lobbies because something bigger and better has just been released (of course there are exceptions, I'm generalising here). Saying that, it's now up to 2nd hand retailers to clearly label games that require an extra fee for online play. Saying that, you can't really defend EA on this one.

  • Bealsy #8 2 years ago

    Hold on... did Activision buy EA overnight or something?

    Not that I buy FIFA anyway, but that is a fucking rip. You've already made your money from the game sale you money grabbing fucktards. This won't make you more money, it will just increase piracy.

  • Fab4 #9 2 years ago

    They already screw their customers with non-transferable DLC, so this is just another 'Fuck you!' to wrap it up.

  • WiseGuy #10 2 years ago

    Hmm pay all that just to have person after person quit on me in FIFA in the 80th minute.....

  • FireMonkey #11 2 years ago

    " "We want to reserve EA Sports online services for people who pay EA to access them," he said. At the moment, publishers receive no money from second-hand game sales. "

    I actually see what they are doing there and it actually makes sense. If you buy the game new then you get the content just as you usually would so no difference there, but if you buy the game second hand they get no money at all but still have to pay for you to play online.

    This shouldn't actually affect second hand games buyers as this reduces the value of the second hand game which will make shops like game drop the second hand prices by £10 to compensate. Therefore if you don't actually want the online part of the game, you will probably end up grabbing a bargain.

  • duckncover #12 2 years ago

    "We want to reserve EA Sports online services for people who pay EA to access them"

    I can't blame them, but I would rather see retailers forced to give publishers a fair slice of the pie. Then we wouldn't have to worry about all of this bollox.

  • DreadedWalrus #13 2 years ago

    wizlon: "Most games deteriorate pretty fast in the multi-player lobbies because something bigger and better has just been released (of course there are exceptions, I'm generalising here)."

    Yes, and some of the biggest exceptions are sports games, which this policy affects. You'll find players online on EA sports games pretty much all year round, and even when they release the new game in the series there are people who will continue playing the old one. I bet there's still lots of people playing FIFA 09 online as we speak.

  • OllyJ #14 2 years ago

    To be honest, I think this is fair enough.

  • FireMonkey #15 2 years ago

    @Grumpy Llama - "I don't understand why the games industry thinks its different. You don't get publishers complaining about second hand book shops or BMW complaining about the second hand car market is damaging their sales"

    No, but the books and cars deteriorate over time and with use and so there is a tangible difference between the quality of the new and second hand in these markets. Games / DVD's on the other hand (as long as they are not scratched) do not deteriorate and so there is no difference and hence no reason to buy new. This is just a method to add an artificial deterioration in quality between new and second hand.

  • FireMonkey #16 2 years ago

    @Fab4 - "They already screw their customers with non-transferable DLC, so this is just another 'Fuck you!' to wrap it up."

    If you bought it second hand then you are not one of their customers as none of your money went to them, so why should they support you?
    Edited by FireMonkey at 11/05/10 @ 08:56

  • UKwoods #17 2 years ago

    Am I the only person who thinks this is a good idea? Don't get me wrong, it's a step backward for the consumer. However, these guys are running a business, they are not set up to provide us with cheap entertainment. It doesn't really matter anyway, it's only a matter of time before physical discs are a thing of the past.

  • Skandalle #18 2 years ago

    What does this mean for rental services? other than headaches.

  • metalangel #19 2 years ago

    So what the fuck do I pay a £36/year Live subscription for, you CUNTS? I bet this will ruin their PS3 sales figures, as I trust PS3 players like having free online so much they won't start saying anything just for the sake of, say FIFA. Well EA, until you shove Project Ten Dorrah all the way up your ass, I am never buying one of your games new again. I'd rather those mouthbreathers in GAME got my cash for a preowned copy than the likes of you. Well done games industry, your greed has pushed this lifelong gamer another step towards giving up completely.

  • peak_performance #20 2 years ago

    So will the regular game be $10 cheaper if you don't care about multiplayer at all?

    no

  • Lotos8ter #21 2 years ago

    I thought Battlefield BC 2 was the first game to use this system with their VIP access included on new copies but £10 from the Marketplace if you bought second hand.
    I can see why publishers would want this but its another nail in the coffin of modern gaming for me. I buy a fair few games second hand but I'm not paying extra for this.

  • flaming.carrot #22 2 years ago

    We might not like it, but seems kind of fair enough (for multiplayer only). Does this mean all EA games will have multiplayer bolted onto them, no matter how unneeded?
    Edited by flaming.carrot at 11/05/10 @ 08:58

  • markyHD #23 2 years ago

    I never buy used games, makes me feel like a gippo, like i'm at a carboot or something lol.

    If I am unhappy with a present price (e.g. want to play heavy rain but not wanting to spend more than 15 - 20 notes), I just wait a while, but I always buy new.

    It does seem fair though, imagine how much money is lost, and no matter what you call it, greed, etc, surely more money somewhere along the lines equates to more games/investment in developers etc.

  • Fab4 #24 2 years ago

    @Fab4 - "They already screw their customers with non-transferable DLC, so this is just another 'Fuck you!' to wrap it up."

    If you bought it second hand then you are not one of their customers as non of your money went to them, so why should they support you?

    if you buy DLC from them, you are a customer of theirs...which part of that is hard to understand? This is just another method for them screw more money out a product which they have already sold once.

    Oh, and btw, DVD/CDs do deteriorate, even setting aside scratches.

  • bad09 #25 2 years ago

    I don't buy 2nd hand anymore (no need to as I don't buy that many new full price games) but this stinks.

    I can safely say, after a few years of the odd pinch of bad treatment, I am beginning to really hate the people responsible for bring me my gaming, not a good state of mind for someone who is supposed to hand over cash to them. Their "business" practices are, in general, overshadowing the important things. The games and my spending.

    Yes it a business, yes you're all in it for the money, but there are ways to do business you cunts, I'm fed up with this publisher or that publisher CONSTANTLY trying to do us all over in the name of profit. Why not go after the big stores who have made 2nd hand the big problem it is? Why not address the number one problem for causing trading, cost? Why not just make decent games that people want to keep instead of shite?

    No easier to piss on people who pay your fucking way. Quite frankly the way this industry handles itself almost all the time now they all have absolutely NO ARGUMENT against 2nd hand or piracy, you screw people over they will gladly return the favour....
    Edited by bad09 at 11/05/10 @ 08:59

  • Craig0702 #26 2 years ago

    I still can't believe people are defending this, mostly with a seemingly holier-than-thou attitude of "I buy my games brand new so I deserve better treatment than you".

    Next time you have to pay about 800 points for content that's already on the disc, don't come crying here about your shiny brand new game ;)

    Also - How about they reduce the ridiculous RRP for new games as well to reflect them wanting people to buy new instead of rent/buy used?

    (fully expecting to get marked down by people who don't rent or buy used games, EDIT: 2 hours later and I'm at -7, proud!)
    Edited by Craig0702 at 11/05/10 @ 10:53

  • FireMonkey #27 2 years ago

    @Skandalle - "What does this mean for rental services? other than headaches."

    Not sure. As far as I know rental DVD's are special rental only - not for resale versions that the stores actually pay more for (to cover the fact multiple people will use them). If games are the same then the unlocking may not necessary be on those versions.

  • Peew971 #28 2 years ago

    Sorry EA but I already pay Microsoft to play your games online so you need to find some sort of arrangement with them.

  • metalangel #29 2 years ago

    And just to add - the cost of running your proprietary servers (your decision, EA) was paid for when the new copy of the game was originally sold. What fucking difference does it make if the original purchaser plays the game online for 12 months, or if they play it for 6 months, trade it in and then someone else plays that copy for 6 months?

  • FireMonkey #30 2 years ago

    @Lotos8ter - "I can see why publishers would want this but its another nail in the coffin of modern gaming for me. I buy a fair few games second hand but I'm not paying extra for this."

    It's not really 'another nail in the coffin' is it? As the publishers make no money from second hand sales they really don't care if you stop buying them. The only person it will affect is you and the shops.

  • jovus #31 2 years ago

    So first I have to pay for xbox live to play online, and now I haw to pay to EA to AGAIN really play online.. F.ck you ea!

  • Powerslave #32 2 years ago

    When creating a game, you spend some money, develop the game, and that's it. the process finishes.

    With online gaming however, the company has ongoing costs which have to do with providing and maintaining servers that allow people to play online. thus, it would actually make sense for them to want to charge money for this.

    Consider this: currently ALL games have Multiplayer components for free. NOT because they love us, but because there haven't been any successful business models implemented that would include charging money (other than MMOs)....... until now with "project 10 dollar".

    The "free" factor is not a constant, and I don't think it should be considered as a given by us gamers. Having said that, I do understand the frustration this causes since everyone has gotten used to playing online for free (even more for PS3).

    Game Publishers are playing a dangerous game indeed.

    Ironic?
    Edited by Powerslave at 11/05/10 @ 09:09

  • FireMonkey #33 2 years ago

    I just had a thought! I wonder if this means EA could actually also sale the games new without the online features for $10 less. I don't have online on my console so don't really need it and $10 cheaper games would be great!

  • myiagros #34 2 years ago

    Gotta say that as unappealing as I find this, I agree with duckncover.

    There is no logic in EA paying to run an online service, which many are accessing without receiving any money from them.

    If pre-owned retailers did the right thing and gave the publishers a slice of the enormous 2nd hand pie, this would all go away.

    For all those saying that this is comparable to missing content from a book or DVD, are missing the point. Neither of these are sold alongside their new versions, with their primary retailers pushing the 2nd hand copies, which give the publishers no cut, in preference to new copies.

  • andywilkie35 #35 2 years ago

    Hmmm, their senior VP has the same name as me.

    However, I wouldn't be a cunt and charge people an additional online charge.

  • bad09 #36 2 years ago

    "It's not really 'another nail in the coffin' is it? As the publishers make no money from second hand sales they really don't care if you stop buying them. The only person it will affect is you and the shops. "

    They get no money on that sale, but it's a chain, games traded for NEW, the old games bought by people who can't afford the increasing cost of this hobby anyway. Lets not forget many stores use 2nd hand to survive as the profit on new is nothing.

    Sure big stores have tainted 2nd hand but it is still important to publishers, since stopping trading on 2nd hand market my spend is hugely down on new I am sure that is a pattern many would follow with the ability to offset cost gone.

  • Fab4 #37 2 years ago

    This concept of charging for providing online, as its already been stated, its factored into the cost whenever they sell the game for the first time. There is absolutely no additional cost involved if someone else is playing the game or the original owner is playing the game. Do you think if a game is 2nd-hand it somehow starts to use more bandwidth? Get real.

  • MrMagica #38 2 years ago

    people here are saying the companys recieve no money so why should they support you, but the thing is the initial cost of the game covers the cost of the features within that game, when a game is purchased second hand the original user is no longer using those features so the games company experiences no extra cost. You could argue that the original person would not be online anymore hence them selling the game however as a developer or in this case a publisher you can not assume that in your business model so the original cost must cover the life of the game. Any other model where further money must be paid to access the same content using the same disk amounts to a subscription fee.

    The most worrying aspect is that the only way they can achieve this is by either locking online features to an account, in which case the game can only be played online by one user on a console, or by locking it to a console in which case if your console breaks and you get a replacement you have to pay again to play your own games online.

  • Spook #39 2 years ago

    Don't really see the problem here, you spend £40 on a new game and get everything or you spend £30 on a second hand copy and an extra £10 to access muti-player. If you really don't want to pay full price (£40 isn't that bad for a game, i remember spendiing that sort of money on Megadrive games 20 years ago!) then you hold off buying it for a few months and buy it new for £20-£30, still getting it cheap and still getting full access. Simples!

  • KayJay #40 2 years ago

    Yeah im with OllyJ. I dont mind this.
    Perhaps this might lower the cost of those preowned/2nd hand games in store too...

  • Rirekon #41 2 years ago

    Clever move and entirely expected given the start that was made with BFBC2, and in all honesty one I support. Currently publishers and developers get nothing from second hand sales and this needs to change given the support costs of most games these days.

    As far as rentals go I'm 90% certain that the industry has yet to adopt the "rental only" model (for some odd reason), so this pretty much kills game rentals with an online component. Which given you're basically renting a second hand game is no bad thing.

  • VicViper #42 2 years ago

    God the sense of entitlement that gamers have is incredible.

    In the case of people with Xboxs microsoft is ripping us off paying for the privelage of accessing the EA servers that they pay for so just because you pay your live fee is not a free pass all your pay for is xbox/xbla excetera. PSN is free but still someone is paying for the running costs of the EA servers.

    I can't really fault EA, if I was running a service for a product I sell then you buy it from someone else and I see no money from the sale why should I provide my service to you? Wheres the business sense in that?

    The fact that it was free for so long is amazing.

  • JonFE #43 2 years ago

    Just wait until they provide us with a "single player pass" code as well :)

  • Toothball #44 2 years ago

    Curious strategy. I can't really blame companies who want to make online services financially viable. There was a story recently that 350k people played last year's Madden game online only once and then never again. Presumably a lot of those people also bought the game second hand. A one-off charge for the option of playing online doesn't really seem so bad when you can eventually get the game for less than that. The alternative answer has them shutting down game servers as happened earlier this year.

  • ignatiusjreilly #45 2 years ago

    The fact that Project $10 is/was originally about small pieces of extra content or new missions shows that this has nothing to do with providing a multiplayer service, or maintaining servers or Xbox Live or anything else. It is plain and simple a way to get a cut from the second-hand market. Defend that if you like, but don't try and dress it up as something it is not, or your argument will fall apart when EA block off content to second-hand buyers in the next single player game they put out.

  • hazelam #46 2 years ago

    i've always said no drm on consoles, and that's exactly what this is.
    they made their money on the game when it sold the first time, this is just greed.
    they'd rather it sits on a shelf gathering dust than other people other than the original buyer get to play it.
    remember the uproar over the rumoured ps3 drm before launch? about how games would be locked to a console or account.
    this is halfway to that, i cannot believe people are actually saying this is a good idea.
    drm is never, NEVER, in the interests of the consumer, just in the interest of the publisher's greed.
    frakk you ea, frakk you all to hell.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #47 2 years ago

    So will the regular game be $10 cheaper if you don't care about multiplayer at all?

    No, but you could sell your access code to somebody who's bought the game second hand.

  • ignatiusjreilly #48 2 years ago

    Games WILL be locked to your console in the next generation, for at least one of the big manufacturers. I'm making that prediction now.

  • GreyBeard #49 2 years ago

    Its entirely fair. Second hand dealers just need to drop their margins a bit to compensate, and there's plenty of room for that given the huge gulf between what they pay for a second hand title and what they then resell it for. (and pay no VAT on).

  • markyHD #50 2 years ago

    Second hand media does damage to all markets though.

    Oh look, I just bought a CD, ripped it to itunes (legally), and sold it to the next guy who will probably do the same, rinse and repeat. I care less about the music industry when I see people like Jay-Z and Beyonce are still netting about $90 mil a year lol.

    But really, one of the major concerns this generation was the increased cost of development as games become more rich and detailed. If this is a way to mitigate some of that cost, then fuck it, why not. I'd much rather they do this than what them nob-jockeys over at Activision did by raising the somewhat standardized RRP of a new game with MW2. That affects everybody, whereas this only affects people who are just trying to save a few quid....

    P.s. for those moaning about RRP prices, 15 years ago a new ps1 game cost about £40, and a can of coke about 35p, today, my games still cost me £40 and I bought a can of coke for 65p yesterday. Which markets are taking the piss? And don't even get me started on the fact that chomps now cost 15p :p
    Edited by markyHD at 11/05/10 @ 09:56

  • metalangel #51 2 years ago

    @VicViper: because the cost of hosting online services was factored into the cost of the new copy. Read my previous comment - a preowned copy will not exist without having been sold as new. And if I'm not "entitled" after buying a game AND paying a yearly sub then when am I ever going to be?

  • Sniper_007 #52 2 years ago

    I really can't see a problem with this - in fact I utterly despise the rampant second hand market so anything that adds value to "new" titles is a great idea in my eyes.

    As some have said above they are not "screwing their customers" at all, since anyone who buys second hand is not funding the publisher or the developer, only the store they bought it from. Why do you think they offer you their second hand title for £3 off... not in the kindness of their hearts that's for sure!!

    I hope this doesn't backfire and lead to an even faster dwindling of the online portion of games... you wonder how much they are propped up at the moment with second hand copies doing the rounds?

    The only other thing which I do find hugely frustrating and that is that lending games to friends will soon no longer be an option, and neither will it be ok for multi-xbox households who want to share a game (like say between two kids?)

  • Mhort #53 2 years ago

    The previous $10 dollar initiatives with Mass Effect 2 and BFBC2 was one thing but this is going too far. Multiplayer is considered pretty central to most people nowadays. Its fair enough for EA to try and make buying a new game attractive but they should only do this by adding to the game not by taking vital parts of it away for second hand buyers.

  • kangarootoo #54 2 years ago

    Sorry to say, I can see where they are coming from here.

    I buy games second hand sometimes, and I like having the option to do so, but I feel that people are being a little naive when they demand that a second hand game should be as fully functional as a new copy.

    People compared to other types of product, but they comparisons are not being deliberately honest.

    If I buy a book second hand, some of the page corners may be curled, maybe some of the pages are discoloured or maybe there is a coffee stain on the back. If the book had a poster or map in it, maybe that is missing 'cos its on the wall of the previous owner.

    The second hand BMW that I might buy doesn't have the original footwell mats anymore. The warranty has expired. The free umbrella and jacket isn't there anymore.

    I realise some people will respond with "it is still fully functional", but that isn't even close to being the point. The point is that it isn't new anymore, so whatever it does and doesn't do is on a case by case basis. If you buy a game secondhand, you get what you pay for. A change like that being detailed in the article means the second hand price of said games will naturally fall. For those that don't give a crap about online, that price fall will be good news.

    Buying games second hand isn't a right, it is just the reality we have gotten used to. If someone changes the nature of a product, we can as ever decide whether or not to buy. EA are doing this to try and make some money from second hand sales, and I can't really fault them for it. Because really, the only defense gamers who complain seem to be able to offer is "I want to pay less for my games".

  • RexRunti #55 2 years ago

    Hmmm, whilst there is nothing technically wrong with what EA are proposing I think it is a step too far. I think the method they used for Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 was perfect as it feels like an extra bonus for people who actually bothered supporting the developer and publisher, this seems more like punishing those who don't.

    What I would suggest is something more positive like a team/kit/player updating service, or ranked matches, tournements and leagues. Or if your team has experience points which you can then spend on upgrades but only people with the code/who have downloaded the add on can spend them.

    In other words more carrot, less stick.

  • FireMonkey #56 2 years ago

    @bad09 - "Lets not forget many stores use 2nd hand to survive as the profit on new is nothing."

    ..and developers and publishers use the new markets to survive and have had to keep the price of the new games high to compensate for those sales lost through second hand sales. If there was no second hand market, the price of new games 'could' be lower (not saying it would as the price all depends on what the perceived value of the product in the eyes of the consumer is).

    Also, as the vouchers can be purchased I'd think the shops would sell the second hand games with a new voucher for the same price as they currently sell second hand games at or without they voucher for about a $8 drop in price. This way it just gives the customer more choice. Have the online and it'll be exactly the same price for you as it was before this scheme, or don't and have the game slightly cheaper.

    Personally, what ever happens I'd prefer the publishers and developers who actually make the games to get my money rather than the people who sell it.
    Edited by FireMonkey at 11/05/10 @ 10:22

  • CARL05 #57 2 years ago

    As long as it is this and not DRM i'm fine with it - perhaps they'll do the same for PC as well.

  • TeaFiend #58 2 years ago

    EA are not charging people any MORE for a game. It is the same price at retail for new as it always was. If you are buying it pre-owned you are buying it with features stripped out.

  • FireMonkey #59 2 years ago

    @Fab4 - " There is absolutely no additional cost involved if someone else is playing the game or the original owner is playing the game."

    That all depends on what is done with online. If the game has some form of online profile or stats (such as BFBC2) then there is an extra cost as they have to store this info somewhere.

    Why does it bother you so much? In the end you will be paying exactly the same for your games as you are right now, but more money will go to the people who make the games you enjoy playing so that they can develop even better games. The only person who loses out is the shop that sales the second hand games at a currently extortionate rate.

  • ignatiusjreilly #60 2 years ago

    Personally, what ever happens I'd prefer the publishers and developers who actually make the games to get my money rather than the people who sell it.

    This is easy, you just buy new. What you mean is you'd prefer the pubs/devs to get the money of other people who buy second-hand. ;)

    As long as it is this and not DRM i'm fine with it

    This is DRM (digital rights management). It takes a game and uses a code to lock it to you account/console. It manages your rights by saying you cannot play this game except where we allow you to play it, and on the conditions that we choose.
    Edited by ignatiusjreilly at 11/05/10 @ 10:22

  • VicViper #61 2 years ago

    @Metalangel

    I missed your post as it appeared as I posted, while a valid point I fairly sure that if the cost of the online service is factored in then it is factored in as part of the cost of a sale of a new product/game and not the resale of an old game.

    While this means that there are never more or less games that the games company manufactures there must also be an upper limit in regards to the factor in terms of running costs. Say 90 million or something for a new game, factor 10 mill of that for online gaming then we sell 1-2 million new copies (if we're luckly these days) and the money running the servers runs out but by then we assume that brand new sales are ramping down and second hand sales take over theres no new money for the publisher but there are still the same number of/new game log ins are coming in as its all second hand sales, I guess it fultuates.

    Wheres the money to keep the servers going? As you have pointed out each game only has money put away for its own multiplayer other wise we need to either charge a subscription or shut down the servers (as EA have done before) the £10 coming in from each second hand useage might be whats needed to keep that 2010 server going for a year or to more than it would have.

    The yearly sub (if you mean Xbox live as I can't think of where else that might apply) you buy is nothing to do with EA though its is mearly for the cost of running xbla, if microsoft gave/subsidised some of the EA servers i would be in complete agreement additional if the only way to buy the game new and fully provide your money to the manufacturer then I would agree too but then if you buy second hand your not giving your money to the people who pay to run thier service so how can you expect them to just provide that.
    Edited by VicViper at 11/05/10 @ 10:23

  • kinky_mong #62 2 years ago

    Only affecting second hand buyers of EA Sports games? I approve of this chav tax.

  • Malkotheslick #63 2 years ago

    I bought Mass Effect 2 new from Gamestation and was told there and then, that I could not return it unless it was faulty due to the Cerberus pass. Basically I can see a blanket ban from retailers on 2nd hand EA trade in's. So consumers will have less choice but the retailers will take the biggest hit. Does anyone here buy FIFA pre owned? If I buy soemthing 2nd hand its been out for donkeys and its usually on impulse but I'd only buy the most recent sports title.

  • chrisjm #64 2 years ago

    and that online pass will be taken away from you quickly as EA only support games online for 12 months - a couple of years if your lucky with 30 notice of termination...

    it will also kill lending games to mates for a weekend & game rental services (unless you only care about single player)
    Edited by chrisjm at 11/05/10 @ 10:28

  • Fab4 #65 2 years ago

    "That all depends on what is done with online. If the game has some form of online profile or stats (such as BFBC2) then there is an extra cost as they have to store this info somewhere.

    Why does it bother you so much? In the end you will be paying exactly the same for your games as you are right now, but more money will go to the people who make the games you enjoy playing so that they can develop even better games. The only person who loses out is the shop that sales the second hand games at a currently extortionate rate. "

    Yes, because the storing of a profile is such an exorbitant cost...10 dollars is a fucking steal *rolls eyes*

    It bothers me so much because its more than likely the thin edge of a large wedge. You let them get away with this and its only a matter of time before you get subscription MP...after all, all those people who continue to play the game even when newer online games have come out are costing EA money...the bastards havent moved on and therefore they'll have to charge you a little subscription (nothing too big...for now) to keep providing the online for you.

    Fucking sheep.

  • ignatiusjreilly #66 2 years ago

    Wheres the money to keep the servers going?

    Anyone would think online gaming was a new invention. It has been going for more than 20 years, and for the cvast majority of that time multiplayer has been free to anyone with a copy of the game. Yet despite this "unsustainable business model", in that time it has gone from niche nerd hobby to massive ball-busting mainstream success.

    This is not necessary in any way, it is just away to extraxct more profit from customers. That in itself is not wrong, but let's not pretend that publishers are doing this for their survival.

  • Shikasama #67 2 years ago

    CORPORATE APOLOGIST FORCE UNITE!

    Enjoy the next generation boys, assuming you can afford it.

  • FireMonkey #68 2 years ago

    @ignatiusjreilly - "What you mean is you'd prefer the pubs/devs to get the money of other people who buy second-hand"

    What I mean is that I'd like to see the shops stop ripping off customers by selling second hand games at a stupidly high profit whilst at the same time damaging the industry that makes the games by actively pushing people to not buy new and so not support the industry.

    This method can not continue. There are only a few possible outcomes:
    1) Many devs and publishers die off as they are not being supported well enough through new sales and so the quality and range of games drops. This also means that less risk taking games are released and everything becomes the same.
    2) As developers publishers struggle to survive they push up the cost of new games. This will eventually fail as people will have to rely on the second hand market as the costs are too high. This then leads to outcome 1)
    3) Publishers stop selling games through shops and distribute through online methods. This means that there will be no competition and so they can price games at whatever level they need to. With everyone needing to buy games this way the cost of a new game 'could' drop as it is no longer funding second hand games. Games shops will die off.
    4) Publishers come up with a system such as EA have. This means more money goes to the devs and publishers and so they can continue to make better games. Stores can still make a reasonable profit from new games and second hand games and so stay open so competition between stores will still exist so the customer can hunt down a bargain and get the game cheaper. This same competition means the prices of the games with an added voucher for the missing content will not cost more than before this scheme.

    Outcome 4 is the only outcome in which everyone wins.
    Edited by FireMonkey at 11/05/10 @ 10:39

  • huckan #69 2 years ago

    I know it's not directly related but this makes me want to go back to PC gaming

  • metalangel #70 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo: Your EA BMW would be missing more than floor mats. You wouldn't be allowed to drive it outside your postcode unless you paid for a pass. On top of your fuel, tax disc and insurance.

  • VicViper #71 2 years ago

    @ignatiusjreilly
    Well ok yes fair enough, then why shut down servers at all? If its so cheap to keep them running.

    In anycase I just came to the reliasation that this also stops you from lending your friends your games that have online as they would also need to buy the online pass and well thats a bit of a harsh side affect.

  • FireMonkey #72 2 years ago

    @Fab4 - "Yes, because the storing of a profile is such an exorbitant cost...10 dollars is a fucking steal *rolls eyes* "

    It was an example of how some money could be lost not a reason for the full $10.

    "It bothers me so much because its more than likely the thin edge of a large wedge"
    I doubt it. Let me just make a few things clear:
    - This system is going to cost you no more than it already does. You will get exactly the same features for the same price.
    - Second hand shops will have to drop the price of games without the codes so if you don't want the features you can get the game cheaper
    - This supports development of the games industy to make newer and bettergames rather than supporting the pockets of greedy shops.

    I really can't understand how people can be so against this as it opens up more choice for the consumer and things will either stay the same or get better for everyone except the shops?

  • ignatiusjreilly #73 2 years ago

    Well ok yes fair enough, then why shut down servers at all? If its so cheap to keep them running.

    Because once you've sold the game, they don't make any money. And because shutting them down might encourage people to buy your new version of the game.

    things will either stay the same or get better for everyone except the shops

    And for the people who buy and sell second-hand games. They will get less money for their trade-ins, and will have to pay out more money if they want the full-game when buying. Shops are not going to be making up most of the difference, the consumer will.
    Edited by ignatiusjreilly at 11/05/10 @ 10:53

  • PlugMonkey #74 2 years ago

    Shikasama
    "CORPORATE APOLOGIST FORCE UNITE!

    Enjoy the next generation boys, assuming you can afford it. "

    LOL. Weren't you the guy who was only going to play PC MMO's in future? So you won't pay a one off $10 charge to play online, but you'll quite happily pay $15 per month, ad infinitum, to do exactly the same thing?

  • Mark1412 #75 2 years ago

    "Yes, because the storing of a profile is such an exorbitant cost...10 dollars is a fucking steal *rolls eyes* "

    You've clearly missed the point. Project $10 was an incentive, this one is a deterrent. You're not paying for the equivalent of anything, you're paying because of the £38 you paid to the fuckwits in Game or HMV, EA and their developers, see nothing. And as dozens of people have already pointed out, games don't deteriorate like a car or book would.

    If you love this industry then you should want to fund the people pumping creativity into it and creating the games you love, not the arseholes in the high street retailers knocking 50p from the retail price and taking 100% profit from a sale.

  • FireMonkey #76 2 years ago

    @Ignatiusjreilly - "And for the people who buy and sell second-hand games. They will get less money for their trade-ins, and will have to pay out more money if they want the full-game when buying. Shops are not going to be making up most of the difference, the consumer will."

    Shops can't really drop the amount that they buy second hand games of us for any more as they are already buying at rock bottom prices. They also can't sell them for any more as they are also pretty much the same (if not more in some shops) then the new games.

    If they do try passing the costs onto the customer it'll just make less buy second hand and as this is where the shops make the serious profit they will need to make up the difference. Retail competition is great. As there are so many shops selling second hand it will only take one to make up the difference and the rest will need to follow or lose there entire second hand market and the huge profits that go with it.

  • Machetazo #77 2 years ago

    hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha......
    hahaha!

    That's better.
    The retailers should be the ones affected. Why on earth do they keep pursuing legitimate paying customers with this crap, ffs! >:(

    It sems like it's just because they're an easy target.

  • Fab4 #78 2 years ago

    Well I dont sell my games, I give them away to family and friends...but I guess they just have to put up with it...just as long as Game suffers, eh?

    The point is that I bought the game. The price factors in any costs involved with me owning the game for its lifetime. Me giving the game to someone else to enjoy doesnt change those costs, and all this is just a way for EA (and most likely every other publisher in the future) to achieve additional revenue from a single copy of a game. Which, and I dont care how much you dress it up, is a massive 'Fuck you!' to gamers.

  • Crisby #79 2 years ago

    They really are greedy bastards.

    http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/page...

  • Machetazo #80 2 years ago

    "As some have said above they are not "screwing their customers" at all, since anyone who buys second hand is not funding the publisher or the developer, only the store they bought it from. Why do you think they offer you their second hand title for £3 off... not in the kindness of their hearts that's for sure!! "

    Every game reflects on its publisher/developer, so, you could argue that without the incentive to try the game, because if it's an easier buy pre-owned, the customer never got exposure to that company and its games. This is especially relevent, where companies are talking against the demo process (even going as far as to say they want to CHARGE for that, too)
    So, to me, it looks like the publishers are trying to be greedy bastards having their cake and eating it, and this is why I have the minimal sympathy for their (and your) position.

  • ignatiusjreilly #81 2 years ago

    @FireMonkey

    There are already huge differences between what some shops offer as trade-in prices, but that isn't forcing GAME to offer better deals. And that's without even mentioning the millions of people who sell games on eBay, sell them to friends or give them away/lend them when they're finished.

    IMO consumers, whether buying first or second-hand will not benefit from this proposal in any single way. And this is why I do not like it.
    Edited by ignatiusjreilly at 11/05/10 @ 11:23

  • TeaFiend #82 2 years ago

    I dislike the car comparing. A second hand car is half price or less, typically. Not 5% off.

  • TeaFiend #83 2 years ago

    @daninthemix:
    No, they are wanting to make potential money from second hand sales. If you buy it new they get the same money as before. You spend the same as normal.

  • FireMonkey #84 2 years ago

    @ignatiusjreilly - "that's without even mentioning the millions of people who sell games on eBay, sell them to friends or give them away/lend them when they're finished."

    I understand that completely and agree that it is a little harsh, but unfortunately what other solution is there for the devs / publishers to survive with the market as it is?

    The shops such as Game have flat out refused to even talk to publishers about some form of profit share from the second hand market (and tbh I can't blame them for not wanting to share the profits as there is no legal reason for them to need to) and so another approach was needed.

    If anyone here can come up with a better solution to the issue (which is most publishers and devs are struggling to survive in the current climate whilst second hand sales of there games are soaring), then I'm sure EA and all the other publishers out there would love to here it.

    Let's stop bickering and see if anyone on here can actually come up with a solution that could work.

  • reality_cheque #85 2 years ago

    @TeaFiend: Exactly! But if you pay 95% of the RRP for a second hand car, you don't blame the manufacturer. You should blame your own stupid self.

  • Fab4 #86 2 years ago

    "I understand that completely and agree that it is a little harsh, but unfortunately what other solution is there for the devs / publishers to survive with the market as it is?"

    Howabout making games that people dont want to sell on in large amounts? Radical concept, I know.

  • midnight_walker #87 2 years ago

    I don't really play online that much. For me, this idea means that I'll be sticking any MP access code on eBay more or less as soon as I unseal the case. And then I can sell or trade the game anyway. Thanks for lining my pockets, EA!
    Edited by midnight_walker at 11/05/10 @ 11:40

  • FireMonkey #88 2 years ago

    @Ignatiusjreilly - "IMO consumers, whether buying first or second-hand will not benefit from this proposal in any single way. And this is why I do not like it."

    Except for the fact that it will help fund the industry that develops these games. Without funding the developers will shut down and the publishers will stop taking any risks with games. The games you play will stop being developed or become carbon copies of what is already out there. When that happens it will be the slow death of the games industry and you will be left playing Farmvile on Facebook.

  • ignatiusjreilly #89 2 years ago

    Let's stop bickering and see if anyone on here can actually come up with a solution that could work.

    A solution to what? A solution to retailers making too much money? Or a solution to people selling games that they don't want anymore?

    The games you play will stop being developed or become carbon copies of what is already out there. When that happens it will be the slow death of the games industry and you will be left playing Farmvile on Facebook.

    What rubbish. The stream of carbon copies, yearly updates, "micro"-transactions and rip-off casual games has come as the games industry is making more money, not less. Why you'd expect that to improve once publishers rip the heart out of the second-hand market I cannot imagine.
    Edited by ignatiusjreilly at 11/05/10 @ 11:48

  • icematt12 #90 2 years ago

    DLC I'm fine with but I question the ethics of locking certain modes/features if you have no code. Still, lets see what happens to the price of pre-owned games as a result.
    Edited by icematt12 at 11/05/10 @ 11:52

  • FireMonkey #91 2 years ago

    @Ignatiusjreilly - "A solution to what? A solution to retailers making too much money? Or a solution to people selling games that they don't want anymore?"

    No, as I said a solution to the fact that most developers and publishers are struggling to be profitable in the current climate (partly due to the second hand market). As more publishers and devs die off we will be left with less and less original games and eventually be left with just having Facebook games to play (Facebook is where the money is at the moment. Farmville has made a stupid amount of money. It has more active users than people that use Twitter and if I remember correctly was developed by a team of under 10 people).

  • ignatiusjreilly #92 2 years ago

    Facebook is where the money is at the moment.

    Line up the millionaire games developers on Facebook, and the millionaire developers on 360/PS3/PC and you tell me which line is longer.

    This idea that the console buiness is going to collapse unless we stop people selling used games is what I do not accept.

    I guess it's just a coincidence that it's not the struggling developers trying to charge for their multiplayer, but it was dreamt up by one of the biggest entertainment corporations on the planet. Yeah, it's to help the struggling developer and stop the consumer being ripped off, that's what this 'project' is all about.
    Edited by ignatiusjreilly at 11/05/10 @ 11:58

  • Machetazo #93 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo: How much of a store like Game's profits come from pre-owned? Are EA really believing that, with the prices staying as they are now, that those will translate into new game sales? It's commonplace to read of people using those shops like revolving door rental stores, indeed that they game as broadly as they are currently able, because of price depreciation, and the option to buy a used copy.

    EA's a big player, and they ought to make sure they're behaving responsibly for the prosperity of gaming, as well as to line their pockets. If it's believed that now, the availability of titles is lower some times (sin & punishment anecdotally being in stock only in certain places, to givea topical example), then just imagine what happens if Game (for example) has even less ability to stock and advertise the broadest range of titles.
    I'd hate to see a grocery store/supermarket situation that in the end would reduce the offering gaming could provide, because publishers aren't having those titles bought by retailers.

  • ParanoidZombie #94 2 years ago

    1- this decision will put a significant pressure on online modes for EAsports' 2011 line-up: if online modes aren't a significant improvement over the 2010 versions, this tactic won"t work. Do you think that 2010 was a significant improvement over 2009? I sure don't, but most of you seem to be happy with FIFA10 so I don't know.

    2 - PES and 2k sports ship their games at a significantly cheaper price. They are inferior games for the most part, but this 10$ thing could make them more interesting.

    3 - about EA's "10$ plan". There's a bit of a problem here: so far, the extra content you get isn't that great. I never use Shale in DA, and ME2's Cerberus network is basically dead. I understand EA's cold "we are all business" stand, but I'm all business too: if your content isn't worth 10$, I'll go with the cheaper alternative.

  • Syrette #95 2 years ago

    Can't believe how many people are fine with this... disturbed tbh. You're actually defending them?

    Yes from a business point of view, it's "fair enough", but for actual paying public it's simply disgusting. I can live with VIP codes and the like limiting 'free' access to certain elements, but to actually remove what is in most sports games the most important feature - multiplayer... it's ridiculous.

    Get over it EA - some people buy your games, get what they want out of them, and then sell them on. There's little point owning a game you're not playing if you can sell it on. The way they treat second hand buyers as bad people is just offensive.

    Do you hear of car manufacturers demanding second hand sellers remove a key component before putting a car back on the market?

  • midnight_walker #96 2 years ago

    1- this decision will put a significant pressure on online modes for EAsports' 2011 line-up: if online modes aren't a significant improvement over the 2010 versions, this tactic won"t work.

    Sure it will. They'll just turn off the servers for the older 'free' games.

  • TonyHarrison #97 2 years ago

    Whilst I can understand why EA want to do this, there's simply no chance that this will result in second hand prices coming down in stores like GAME. You can walk in there today and probably find a second hand copy of something like Bayonetta for around £40, or you could find a brand new copy online for less than half that price.

    The ship has long since sailed for GAME to be competitive with their pricing. Hell, if GAME do anything in response to this, it'll be to try and sell these codes themselves.... for $15.

  • kangarootoo #98 2 years ago

    @Shikasama

    One person's apologist is another person's realist. Games publishers are the ones making the games, if they do stuff you don't like and nobody buys their games, they will stop doing it. Just because most of the populace don't mind paying for something doesn't mean you have to get your knickers in a twist and act like nobody knows their own mind. If the majority of the games you buy are new, this doesn't really affect you, and iof the majority of the games you buy are second hand... well frankly you don't get to call the shots 'cos you aren't the primary customer. That is life.

  • kangarootoo #99 2 years ago

    @Machetazo

    "How much of a store like Game's profits come from pre-owned?"

    From my limited knowledge of the subject, I would say a significant proportion. That is why they do such good deals on trade ins for specific titles. The profit on a trade in title is huge compared to a new title.

    Edit: is the neg from someone who silently disagrees? Or someone who just objects to facts?
    Edited by kangarootoo at 11/05/10 @ 12:37

  • kangarootoo #100 2 years ago

    @ignatiusjreilly

    "This idea that the console buiness is going to collapse unless we stop people selling used games is what I do not accept."

    I'm not sure it is that relevant whether we accept it or not, is it?

    EA make a game, they sell it new. That game then gets passed between various hands through multiple transactions, and EA see none of that new money. They see that affecting their bottom line, and they want to address that.

    Every business, regardless of how stable it is, will want to protect its income. No competant buisness waits until it is on the edge of ruine before it starts taking a look at how it might increase its revenue.


    People seem to keep trying to turn this into a moral issue, but for me it has never been any such thing. We don't buy games so that kids can learn to read. We don't buy them so that angels make it back into heaven. We buy games because we want to be entertained. EA sell games because they want to make money. What on EARTH suddenly gave us the higher moral ground here? Our motives are just as mercenary as EAs? Neg me if you wish, but tell me its not true.

    For me, its not a moral issue at all. None of us have a right to anything here. EA are fully entitled to sell the product that they want to sell, and if we can't control ourselves enough to not buy something even though we think it is a bad deal, we deserve what we get. Simple.

  • kangarootoo #101 2 years ago

    @TonyHarrison

    "there's simply no chance that this will result in second hand prices coming down in stores like GAME"

    Simply not true. And talking about what you can find online today is irrelevant, as the assumption that GAME compare their prices to online prices is false.

    GAME don't compare their prices to online sellers, they base their prices on what sells in their shops. A change like this will make less people buy specific second hand copies in GAME's store, so the sales in GAME's stores will fall, so the price in GAME's stores WILL drop.

  • NGCes26294BIV #102 2 years ago

    Okay, I think some of you are in need of some speculation control...

    - EA does NOT pay for server costs relating to their online titles, Microsoft do. That’s why you pay a LIVE subscription.
    - Sony have a free online service because they pass their server costs onto the developer/publisher, so in Sony’s case, EA will indeed be footing the bill.
    - No other industry is able to claim rights over future sales of their products. Degradable or otherwise, the second hand market is both essential and reasonable.

    Also, if you are comparing products of a similar nature, take DVDs. A basic disc with nothing but the film might set you back £5-7, but you can buy a two-disc/extended/special edition with all kinds of extras for a premium – perhaps £10-15. The problem with transferring this to games is that publishers want the current RRP to be the BASIC price, not the premium one, so they’re slowly but surely removing content from the original purchase and ‘adding value’ over time.

    If EA had come out and offered a cheaper RRP for an offline-only version in addition to this anti-second-hand initiative I would have sympathised and supported the move, but I’m afraid this is nothing more than a cynical attempt to cut down second hand sales and increase their profit margins.

  • ignatiusjreilly #103 2 years ago

    I'm not sure it is that relevant

    Well, it was relevant to the post I was replying to :)

    To me there are moral issues at play here, which is why we have pro-consumer laws protecting the right to resale, right of refund, right to epect a purchase to be fit for purpose. These laws don't just apply to essentials like heart monitors and tampax. They apply to everything, luxury entertainment goods or otherwise.We don't just say to companies go out and make money any way you can, because there would be all sorts of unscrupulous actions that would be bad for the general public.

    I'm not saying EA are doing anything illegal, but I am saying that the unregulated pursuit of money is not always morally right. And the "it's just entertainment" argument does not any difference to me one way or the other, the same arguments apply.

    if we can't control ourselves enough to not buy something even though we think it is a bad deal, we deserve what we get.

    If you take this to its logical conclusion, we would still have people selling snake oil, fake cancer drugs and offering "protection" to local businesses.
    Edited by ignatiusjreilly at 11/05/10 @ 12:50

  • Acrid #104 2 years ago

    My biggest problem with this is that generally in the world of video games $10 = £10 not the £5 or £6 that it should.

  • kangarootoo #105 2 years ago

    @ignatiusjreilly

    I'm fine with consumer protection laws, I have no issue with those. But at the root all all consumer protections laws is the same principle, and I believe it addresses all of your snake oil examples.

    The pricnciple is... the product must do what is was described as doing, for as long as is determined to be the reasonable life of the product. Simple as that.


    Nothing EA are doing here contravenes that principle, and that is what gets my goat when these discussions come up. I am known to get a bee in my bonnet when it comes to personal responsibility, and this instance it is for the following simple reason.

    If EA told you the game would do something, and it turned out not to do that, they would be lying to you (or would be in error) and you would be entitled to a full refund as you would have been misled. If EA, or any other publisher, or any other seller of goods for that matter, TELLS you exactly what the deal is... and you don't like the deal.... walk away. IF you (and I don't mean you personally, obviously) don't like the deal, but you still buy it anyway.... you have given up your right to whine about it.


    In this case, nothing is being concealed, nobody is being tricked, EA are simple changing the way their product works. Our choice as consumers remains unchanged.

    Now IF EA were to pull the plug on online play at a future point, that would indeed suck and may even be dishonest. However, what in the f*ck anybody thought that had to do with the discussion at hand is beyond me. The two issues are entirely unrelated, and the only people placing the two together are cluthing at strawmen to try and legitimise their grumpiness.

  • Spungles #106 2 years ago

    I agree with kangarootoo that the deal is the deal. But if you sell your car you don't expect to pay a slice to the manufacturer. Do EA have any right to influence private sales? I think its a bit off. People seem really cross about it but internet prices for new often beat early pre-owned prices anyway. Its not like EA are raping your dog or anything.

    If any of the issues in this post affect you then call 1-800-EADOGRAPE

  • ignatiusjreilly #107 2 years ago

    Now IF EA were to pull the plug on online play at a future point, that would indeed suck and may even be dishonest.

    They do pull the plug on online play don't they? I thought they did that regularly.

    My problem is not with the deal you make at the ggames store when you buy it, but that EA are subtly manipulating the deal you get a year down the road when you come to sell it. And in my view, they have no right to manipulate that perfectly legitimate market.
    Edited by ignatiusjreilly at 11/05/10 @ 12:57

  • A-Trak #108 2 years ago

    EA are a business, who run and maintain servers for the multiplayer aspects of their titles.
    While this move may not be palatable, it's certainly understandable and the only surprise is that it took this long to be implemented.

  • DeltaBravoNiner #109 2 years ago

    I can see why EA would go for this option, retailers selling second hand games are making ridiculous profits by ripping off the consumers of publishers like EA. The publishers / developers are seeing none of these profits - but are the ones who put all the hard work into bringing the titles to the shelves in the first place.

    How many times have we walked into a store retailing games and second hand games and saw the second hand price be more than they are selling it for at that point in time brand new. Or been offered £5 - £10 trade for a game only to see it selling second hand for £25 - £30... EA see none of that mark up. Hopefully it'll be the start of the end of second hand game stores attempting to rip us off.

  • Fab4 #110 2 years ago

    Ofc they regularly pull the plug on their online servers. last example:

    April 6, 2010: Madden 09 for PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, PlayStation Portable, Wii and Xbox 360

    Look at that, they kept it up for over a year!! God bless em, one and all!
    Edited by Fab4 at 11/05/10 @ 13:02

  • PlugMonkey #111 2 years ago

    NGCes26294BIV
    "Also, if you are comparing products of a similar nature, take DVDs. A basic disc with nothing but the film might set you back £5-7, but you can buy a two-disc/extended/special edition with all kinds of extras for a premium – perhaps £10-15. The problem with transferring this to games is that publishers want the current RRP to be the BASIC price, not the premium one, so they’re slowly but surely removing content from the original purchase and ‘adding value’ over time. "

    I was just thinking a similar thing: If I buy the game new, I pay for the online component whether I want it or not. If I buy 2nd hand it's an optional extra. Sure, I could try and sell my Online Pass if I don't want it, but it's extra hassle nonetheless. Surely the game should come without online and be $30 new?

    Except that doesn't achieve EA's goal of a new purchase being much more attractive than a 2nd hand one.

    There is a reason that this has all come to a head with video games and not DVDs, which makes comparison's to DVDs, CDs and other media not quite parallel, and that is that HMV don't sell 2nd hand DVDs. You won't get to the checkout with your brand new copy of Avatar and have a carefully drilled sales clerk ask you if you wouldn't rather have a 2nd hand copy for £5 less.

    2nd hand DVD sales is a secondary sales channel, whereas 2nd hand games sales have taken over the primary sales channel. It's got to the point where a new game has a window of just a few weeks before its sales are cut off right at the source.

    The retailers have been merrily gouging from both sides, and it's a situation that really is unsustainable. The publishers have to do something about it, and unfortunately the only way they can affect the retailers is through us, the consumers.

    So, EA are trying a bunch of stuff in the gap before we go to full digital download. Most of it will be soaked up by the retailer, because if it isn't, we'll all just stop buying their 2nd hand games, and even at $10 less they still make more money on a 2nd hand game than a new one, so it's in their interest to soak up the difference.

    In 10 years time FIFA will be a live updated monthly subscription service, instead of an annual disc release, and all the retailers will be dead. It might cost $180 a year instead of $40 a year, but at least Shikisama will be happy!

  • BobsUncle #112 2 years ago

    I can't understand the number of people here defending this!

  • Rubarack #113 2 years ago

    I'm going to back EA on this one because I do understand that they are haemorrhaging money, and since this could affect funding of games such as Brutal Legend or Mirrors Edge I'd like for them to be able to turn this around. This move does affect legitimate consumers a little, but it gains EA much more.

    When it comes down to it, it's either this, increasing the price of games, reducing the cost of developing games, constricting the kind of games they will fund or going bankrupt. Personally I'm pleased with this choice.

  • Fab4 #114 2 years ago

    If you can't make money today, selling video games once and only once, you shouldnt be selling games in the first place.

  • M_of_the_sys #115 2 years ago

    If this is the case, are there likely to me more reviews of Online services by EG? Perhaps EA will offer a trial free to play online service for games?
    If I buy a second hand game, I'm not likely to cough up some cash for mulitplayer if I don't know how good or bad it is.

  • Zomoniac #116 2 years ago

    If I sell my car, VW don't expect to make a cut of that sale - they got their money when I bought the car.

    If you don't want to go through the hassle of a private sale but want to get the best price for selling to a dealer, where do you take your car to get rid of?

    The VW garage. And guess who makes the profit on that sale?

    But before that you'll need it servicing. You might take it to an official dealership, and thus VW makes more money. You might not, you'll take it to a indie garage, but you need a new part, so they order it from... VW.

    Also, used car sales have been an issue for a long, long time. This is factored into the price. The used game issue has only become a major issue in the last 10-15 years, yet despite game development costs going up by 100x, in real terms game prices have halved. They could do what car manufacturers do and adjust prices to account for resale losses, remove all the DRM and re-sale deterrents and charge £80 for a game. Would that stop people whining? Would it bollocks.

  • JimWest #117 2 years ago

    I like how this thread is clearly showing who has anything to do with working in the industry and who is just a consumer of the industry.

    And yes i work in the industry and think it is a bloody good idea.
    Edited by JimWest at 11/05/10 @ 13:25

  • VicViper #118 2 years ago

    @Fab4
    Selling the game new once isn't the issue its the games you don't sell because someone gets the pre-owned instead of the new game.

    if you make 100 disks sell 50 and then 25 get sold back to GAME whatever to be sold slighly cheaper the publisher/developer doesn't get anything when those cheaper pre-owned get bought by a customer instead of some of the brand new remaining copies sitting on the self.

  • PlugMonkey #119 2 years ago

    Fab4
    "If you can't make money today, selling video games once and only once, you shouldnt be selling games in the first place. "

    Taking that statement to its (almost) logical conclusion: If you sold a video game once and only once, you'd need to charge $10,000,000 for it to cover the development costs. Meanwhile a retailer makes $100,000,000 simply by buying it back and then reselling it over and over again.

    Therein lies the entire issue...

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #120 2 years ago

    - EA does NOT pay for server costs relating to their online titles [on Xbox], Microsoft do.

    They actually do pay their own server costs, a condition of EA joining Live back in the Xbox 1 days was that they could use their own network and ea.com authentication mechanisms. That's why you need to go through an EA signup process even on Xbox Live if you want to play EA games online. Because it only happens one at the beginning, most people probably forget that they have to go through it.
    Edited by MENTAL1ST at 11/05/10 @ 13:36

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #121 2 years ago

    I can't understand the number of people here defending this!

    A fair amount of people who read Eurogamer are present or former members of the game development and publishing community. As a former game developer myself, I want to see far more or the games profit pot going to development staff.

    There are various levels at which that pot is dipped into, and the shops are first in the queue. The pre-owned market, whereby shops buy games off customers, then sell them on, at considerable profit, yet undercutting new copies of the same games, is taking more out of the pot than is the shops' fair share. As such, I applaud EA's attempts to confound them, and move the game sales profits that little bit nearer to the people who, in my opinion, deserve them.
    Edited by MENTAL1ST at 11/05/10 @ 13:38

  • ignatiusjreilly #122 2 years ago

    @Mentalist(air)

    Which is why saying they need this to pay for server costs is untrue also. EA chose (insisted on!) to use their own servers because they can retain control on them (shut them down, region lock them etc.). In other words, using their own servers makes them profit, doesn't cost them.

  • kangarootoo #123 2 years ago

    Let me clarify my position.

    I'm not saying this is great news. I buy second hand games myself, not that often (I don't buy games that often really these days). I'm not saying I'm glad EA are addressing the issue of resale in this way. I'm not even saying that addressing the issue of resale in any way is a good thing. I am not saying EA are heroes of the modern age, neither should we invite them round for tea.



    1. What I am saying is that I understand why EA are doing this. The games industry is an unstable one, with big costs and no gurantee of success for any product. Comparisons to the car business don't hold water, and the number of unknowns are muh much lower in that industry.

    2. In general, no company can be blamed for wanting to maximise profits. People just need to get over that aspect of business.

    3. I think that if a publisher decides that they absolutely HAVE to address this issue, EA are going the right way about it (i.e. the first purchaser of the game gets the same experience they would have always got). In my eyes, the first hand buyer is the first class citizen in the transaction, their experience should not suffer one iota by any steps to reduce resale. Anyone buying second hand gets a second hand product, and all that entails. In this instance, EA are maintaining the experience of the first buyer, and that gets a thumbs up on principle from me.

    4. I think EA are being perfectly upfront about this, so it is remiss of any of us to act like they are trying to trick anyone. They just aren't. We need to stop confusing "I don't like this thing" with "I am being conned".

    5. Your statutory rights are not affected, as it says on cereal boxes. If you really don't like the deal here, don't buy the game. Unlkess you have a mental condition that means you are addicted to games, you have no right to act like you are being FORCED to do anything.

    6. I fully accept that EA have in the past turned off servers early, but I also accept that is entirely a seperate discussion and not relevant here.

  • NGCes26294BIV #124 2 years ago

    @Mentalist(air)

    "Even the Playstation ones? That's very kind of Microsoft."

    You should have read the next sentence in my previous post before making yourself look stupid...

    "- Sony have a free online service because they pass their server costs onto the developer/publisher, so in Sony’s case, EA will indeed be footing the bill."


  • Slipstream #125 2 years ago

    I think the majority responses here just go to show how awful this idea is.

    and it's EA who seem to be the ones who constantly whinge about about pre-owned affecting their market share.
    I'm keen to know who put this idea about punishing the consumer for buying pre-owned down on the table.

    This doesn't affect me though as I don't own a single EA title and now, don't plan to in the near future. =P

  • Fab4 #126 2 years ago

    Yeah, the entire issue is that someone has developed a business plan around buying/reselling a product (My! I wonder how they came up with that concept!?) and the original producer of the product wants in on the action...approaching the issue with the finesse of a large hammer.

    If EA have a problem with re-sales of their games they could:

    a) buy them back and resell them themselves
    b) Make games that people dont want to sell on in large numbers

    No, they'd prefer to dictate what people do with their games after they've sold them. I can hardly wait till DVD publishers start requiring codes for resold movies in order for you to watch the closing scenes. After all, they deserve the money too, don't they?

    Money grab, pure and simple...EA: fuck the consumer, as long as I get my cut.

  • JonFE #127 2 years ago

    @M_of_the_sys:
    Taken from EA Sports Online Pass FAQ:

    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.

  • JonFE #128 2 years ago

    @ Machetazo:
    "How much of a store like Game's profits come from pre-owned? "

    Well, according to this article GameStop's profit on used products for the fiscal year ended Jan 31st, 2009 was almost 50%.

  • M_of_the_sys #129 2 years ago

    @JonFE

    Ah that's good news then. Thank you.

    @Kangarootoo

    6. I fully accept that EA have in the past turned off servers early, but I also accept that is entirely a seperate discussion and not relevant here.

    I don't know too much about what EA have done in the past with this but isn't it entirely related if this was the case? You would be paying for an online service. If that service is stopped, you're not getting what you paid for.
    Or do you mean it's not relevant here because it hasn't happened yet?

  • Zomoniac #130 2 years ago

    I like how this thread is clearly showing who has anything to do with working in the industry and who is just a consumer of the industry.

    I don't work in the industry, I just appreciate that game sales being at an all time high but the most innovative of the 'big 3' publishers posting a loss of $1.08bn in 2008, in a huge part down to the used game market, isn't sustainable, and that they deserve to be rewarded in exchange for an enjoyment of their product, something far too many people think they're entitled to for nothing.

  • alimokrane #131 2 years ago

    Some of you are simply NOT GETTING this right! EA simply wants money out of the 2nd hand market and it's a total cheat because:

    The whole idea is ridiculous! If the first owner sells his game then he wont be playing online anymore now, will he? Why would you need to charge the 2nd owner another $10 when he is just playing instead of the person who bought the game in the first place! (i.e. a person who has payed their $10 if you will) It doesn't matter if u resell the game, once, twice or three times, since the total of people playing online will still be 1 person per copy sold! Way to trick us EA!!!!
    Edited by alimokrane at 11/05/10 @ 14:10

  • JonFE #132 2 years ago

    @M_of_the_sys:

    You may be on to something here. If EA starts selling this Online Pass codes to second hand buyers, how will they justify switching off their older games' servers anymore? Seems to me they are opening a can of worms with this.

  • Zomoniac #133 2 years ago

    The whole idea is ridiculous! If the first owner sells his game then he wont be playing online anymore now, will he? Why would you need to chrnge the 2nd owner another $10 when he is just playing instead of the person who bought the game in the first place! It doesnt matter if u resell the game, once, twice or three times, since the total of people playing online will still be 1 person per copy! Way to trick us EA!!!!

    I think you're missing the point. This really isn't about charging to play online, this is purely about discouraging trade-ins and second-hand sales, it's just an experimental way of doing it.

    If EA spend £50m making a game, and 10m people buy it, EA making a tenner off each copy, they've doubled their money.

    If 10m people buy it but only 2m buy new, and each copy is traded in and rebought 4 times, EA make a loss of £30m. Meanwhile, Game make £20 on each of 10m copies sold. Game get £100m for doing fuck all. EA lose £30m for taking a risk and developing a new game. All so a few cheap people can save two quid on the price of a new game.

  • alimokrane #134 2 years ago

    @Zomoniac

    Oh, I agree with that completely mate. They should just come out and say it, why blame it on online?

  • dr_faulk #135 2 years ago

    Here is the closest analogy I can come up with:

    Imagine a car manufacturer asking you to pay a once-off fee equating to 20% of the 'as new' open marketing selling price of the car, in order for you to be allowed either (a) buy petrol for it, or (b) buy parts etc for the car.

    This is an absolute sham. Maybe if you didn't flood the market with so many average titles, EA, you wouldn't inspire people to wait for second-hand copies.

    Sheer unadultered thuggery.

  • Zomoniac #136 2 years ago

    seeing as i have never seen any games i have traded in on the shelfs for £20 more than i paid for them (in general its around £8-£10) i will say that the £20 number is as much rubbish as the rest of your numbers.

    So you think those used games that Game have for £38-43 they actually offer over £30 in trade-in price for?? My figures were purely illustrative and never intended to be taken as actual, precise margins, unlike you are claiming with your numbers which, I can tell you from much experience, are completely wrong. The £15 at most trade price for £38 resale price is widely used at Game and Gamestation (my gf worked at both for extended periods), which gives a profit of over £20. Many of their £10 used games have a trade-in price of £2 (so your £8 number in that case is accurate but they will be making a 400% profit on that game).

  • Zomoniac #137 2 years ago

    This is an absolute sham. Maybe if you didn't flood the market with so many average titles, EA, you wouldn't inspire people to wait for second-hand copies.

    Evidently nobody told you, but it is entirely because they stopped flooding the market with average titles that they've had to resort to this. They were making a fortune until they tried to start innovating. Now they're losing a fortune.

  • dr_faulk #138 2 years ago

    @Zomoniac

    Innovation doesn't necessarily lead to something above average. If they kept churning out franchise entries, I wouldn't complain as long as they were genuinely exciting and worth playing.

  • PlugMonkey #139 2 years ago

    dr_faulk
    "Here is the closest analogy I can come up with:

    Imagine a car manufacturer asking you to pay a once-off fee equating to 20% of the 'as new' open marketing selling price of the car, in order for you to be allowed either (a) buy petrol for it, or (b) buy parts etc for the car."

    It is? Seriously? How does not being able to go online equate to not being able to buy petrol? That would render the car completely useless, whereas here offline play is unaffected. Surely that's closer to not being able to use certain roads? Where does buying parts come into it? What parts do you need to buy for FIFA? Is it likely to break down and then not go anywhere unless you get a new AI subroutine from KwikFit?

    I hate to be picky, but you did say that was the closest analogy you could come up with, and it's by far the worst one out of nearly 150 comments...

  • Zomoniac #140 2 years ago

    Innovation doesn't necessarily lead to something above average. If they kept churning out franchise entries, I wouldn't complain as long as they were genuinely exciting and worth playing.

    This is true, but as we all know too well, quality doesn't equal sales. How much do you think it cost to research, design and develop something radical and new like Mirror's Edge? That could've ended up being the best game ever and probably still wouldn't have broken even. Would you rather they didn't try? Or would you rather subsidise the development of new games like this by paying a couple of quid more than before and start buying games new instead of used (not you specifically, I mean people in general).

    In the last 5 years, how many completely new brands can you think of that have shifted really big numbers (say 5m+)? I can think of Wii Sports (doesn't count as it's a pack-in), Wii Fit, Brain Training, Nintendogs and Assassin's Creed. Really not that many, and 80% aimed an audience of non-gamers. Yet the hardcore on here and elsewhere, despite being a minority, are expecting developers and publishers to come up with new, innovate games and brands, despite the fact the casual lot, ie the bulk of the market, will continue to exclusively buy brands they've heard of, CoD, GTA, Halo, FIFA etc. If you don't want sequel after sequel and nothing but film tie-ins and annual sports games, they're going to have to find a way of funding it. I'd rather fund it than lose it.

  • lavalant #141 2 years ago

    If they reduced their prices from the laughable £50rrp for their annual EA sports updates more people wouldnt see the need to sell them on to recoup the money or wait and buy it at a more reasonable price. Same goes for many other games out there, if Capcom can release Super Street Fighter 4 for £25rrp EA can do the same with their Fifa titles.

  • dr_faulk #142 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey

    Funny, as I wrote (a) and (b), I was going to type, "but there the analogy breaks down", but I didn't. So let me re-phrase:

    Imagine a car manufacturer asking you to pay a once-off fee equating to 20% of the 'as new' open marketing selling price of the car, whenever you buy a second hand car of theirs, not even from them, but from a third party car dealer.

    Please don't say that they are forcing us to pay that. I'm simply hypothesizing the need to pay such an amount, for whatever reason.

    In saying all that, I'm not against paying for online play. If Activison had, in one way, charged me $10 for playing CoD4 online for a solid two years of play, I'd have thought it to be excellent value for money. The chances of me playing an EA sports game as intently, for such a duration, are slim, and so I think the $10 is wasteful.

    Also, wtf!? Stop defending EA you big corporate money-knob!
    Edited by dr_faulk at 11/05/10 @ 15:15

  • secombe #143 2 years ago

    The EA Sport games I own all clearly state on the back of the box that online components may be shut off with 30 days notice after the end of that particular sports season. If people don't agree with that, they shouldn't have bought/opened it...so the server shut down issue is irrelevant here in my opinion.

    The irony here is that the annual EA Sport updates probably thrive on the trade-in business more than any other, I know many people who 'upgrade' every year, minimising the financial impact by selling or trading their existing version.

    EA have the opportunity to make FIFA/NHL/Madden etc the first fully updateable console titles - buy once and purchase yearly DLC to upgrade the mechanics (alongside Live Season which would update kits/summer transfersetc)

  • kangarootoo #144 2 years ago

    @dr_faulk

    There is a difference between defending EA and defending a discussion thread against non-sensical and poorly thought out metaphor.


    People need to get over this pathetic ad hominem that is "why are you defending EA" rubbish. Comments like that simply remove all intelligence from the discussion. "EA are bad, so if you pick holes in my ridiculous critism of them, you are bad as well". Grow up.

    Its not about defending anything other than intelligent discussion. We aren't children, we don't need to "pick sides".

  • ignatiusjreilly #145 2 years ago

    EA have the opportunity to make FIFA/NHL/Madden etc the first fully updateable console titles - buy once and purchase yearly DLC to upgrade the mechanics (alongside Live Season which would update kits/summer transfersetc)

    Yes, and that would wipe out the second-hand market in one fell swoop. But obviously it is more profitable to release £50 yearly updates through retailers and then strangle the second-hand market than it is to offer cheaper updates online and take 100% of the profit themselves.

  • smelly #146 2 years ago

    @The many people making 2nd hand car analogies.

    When you buy a 2nd hand car, you expect it to be deterioated a bit. You'd expect it to need more repairs, etc than a brand new one. I.e. you dont expect it to be of the exact same quality as a brand new car. Same here.. EA are deterioating the game on purpose for 2nd hand sales.

    And good on them i say. The game stores have been taking the piss for far too long now. Those who support the game stores who practice selling 2nd hand games as a preference to brand new ones (and will actively try to talk you out of buying a new game) only have themselves to blame here.

  • ignatiusjreilly #147 2 years ago

    Well I've never bought a second-hand game in my life, but I still don't like it. Who should I blame?

  • Ryze #148 2 years ago

    The only issue here - as people have already mentioned, is that this encourages people who aren't into or can't participate in online play to buy the game second-hand to take advantage of the inevitable preowned discount that'll become more common on EA sports titles.

    I can see why they'd do this though, as everyone's realising that there's an ongoing running cost for online services - but that they're powerful in holding on to your paying audience.

    ryz

  • Ninja_Tino #149 2 years ago

    I fail to see why anyone buys anything from a retail store unless there's a sale going on. If the game's £40 then the preowned price, from past experience, is only around 2 or 3 pound less. Games, whether for a limited time or permanent, quickly go down in price by A LOT on a variety of websites and are a much better deal than the preowned prices in shops. I cannot begin to comprehend why people would buy preowned when there are better deals on a plethora of websites: Play, ShopTo, Amazon, Gameplay, being but a few.

  • IainMcKenzie #150 2 years ago

    As much as EA are a monstrous behemoth of a company I'd still support them over the major game retailers any time. For all its woes EA actually produces games which millions of people enjoy and whereas the retailers are simply parasites. EA are not hurting their customers in the slightest, second-hand buyers aren't their customers, EA receive no money from them so why should they have to provide any service to these people?

    I think it's been about 8 years or so since I actually bought a game at the full-RRP in store rather than buying online or digitally. The entire second-hand market of paying people a pittance for games and selling it to someone else at near RRP is a scam worthy of the mob. If it wasn't for retailers having a hissy fit digital distribution would see games released at a lower price rather than at a price parity with a boxed copy. The less influence retailers have the better in my view, their business model is outdated and I'm glad to see developers finally starting to take a stand.

    End of rant...

  • ignatiusjreilly #151 2 years ago

    If it wasn't for retailers having a hissy fit digital distribution would see games released at a lower price rather than at a price parity with a boxed copy.

    LOL yeah, keep telling yourself that.

  • Machiavellian #152 2 years ago

    I can see why publishers would want this but its another nail in the coffin of modern gaming for me. I buy a fair few games second hand but I'm not paying extra for this.

    If you really think about it, you as the consumer look for the cheapest way to play the games you want to play. You do not care if the developers or publishers get paid as long as you can get a deal. Well the same can be said for the publisher and developer. How can they care if you do not purchase the game new, that way they get paid. You are not a paid customer for them and thus their should be some type of separation a Paid customer receives then from a non paying customer.

    When you see some companies financial looking like crap, you can believe they will try to get all the money they can at retail if possible.

  • kangarootoo #153 2 years ago

    @ignatiusjreilly

    "LOL yeah, keep telling yourself that."

    I know you can do better than that ;)

  • kangarootoo #154 2 years ago

    "EA are not hurting their customers in the slightest, second-hand buyers aren't their customers, EA receive no money from them so why should they have to provide any service to these people? "

    Brilliant.

  • thepiedpiper #155 2 years ago

    whilst this does feel like the consumer getting a shafting, i would like to see retailers get their comeuppance for the sometimes criminally overpriced pre-owned games.

    the other day i saw modern warfare 2 for like 40 quid pre-owned!!! which would be fine i guess but most retailers make about 75% profit on pre-owned. they give you like £8 trade-in and then sell it at 25. which is why i stopped buying 2nd hand games.

    but still. EA need to be careful. it may just come to bite them this.

  • ignatiusjreilly #156 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Dunno why I slipped into LOL mode. Glad there's someone there to slap me out of it ;)

  • Bloobat #157 2 years ago

    i actually think this is a GOOD idea, i mean it does dicourage second hand sales, witch means more money for the game industry!

  • Pablo2k5 #158 2 years ago

    @Bloodbat

    More money for the gamers industry, why is that a good idea? Are you in the industry?
    Edited by Pablo2k5 at 11/05/10 @ 18:45

  • azix2 #159 2 years ago

    so a pirated copy of the game is just as good as a rental or used copy now?

  • dr_faulk #160 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Hang on, man. The comment about defending EA was an attempt at humour, hence the "money knob" comment. I didn't think EG forums were so intellectual that somebody can't bail out of an argument by using humour.

    Yeah, it was a flaky analogy, by own admission, and corrected later. What do you expect from a man who works through lunch eating cold Tesco pasta?

  • Zomoniac #161 2 years ago

    More money for the gamers industry, why is that a good idea?

    Because they're currently losing money hand over fist? I'd quite like there to still be games to buy in 5 years time, which there won't if they don't start making more money pretty quickly. Or do you think the $1.08bn loss EA posted in 2008 means that denying them money even more is a good idea? You do know that making games costs quite a lot of money?
    Edited by Zomoniac at 11/05/10 @ 19:49

  • Johnhost #162 2 years ago

    I think EA deserves to get paid for each copy of it's games sold. Frankly there are doing the smartest thing and I expect all publishers will be doing this in the future. For people who buy the game new there is no change.

    This is not DRM.

  • metalangel #163 2 years ago

    When you buy a 2nd hand car, you expect it to be deterioated a bit. You'd expect it to need more repairs, etc than a brand new one. I.e. you dont expect it to be of the exact same quality as a brand new car. Same here.. EA are deterioating the game on purpose for 2nd hand sales.

    Oh please. When you buy a car used, sure, it'll be in less than mint condition - stonechips, worn components, etc. Much like a used game - dogeared manual, scratches on the disc, and the previous owner cracked the box. With EA removing the online component from their games, that's like if I buy a used Mondeo, Ford come over and smash off the mirrors, take out half the sparkplugs, punch a hole in the tank and tell me I can't leave town in it.

    EA are not hurting their customers in the slightest, second-hand buyers aren't their customers, EA receive no money from them so why should they have to provide any service to these people?

    Do we still like our cars? Good. Funny how if you be a relatively new used car, the manufacturer transfers the warranty to you.

    No? Fine. You go to McDonalds, and you give your friend one of your McNuggets. But they don't like the honey mustard dip, and go to ask for BBQ. The clerk tells them to fuck off as THEY didn't personally buy the McNuggets, so they're not a customer even though they are in possession of food purchased there. They then seize the nugget, throw it on the floor and stomp on it so some of the batter comes off. Sure, it's still a McNugget, but it's not as good, because that apparently is all you deserve.

    Too extreme?

    You buy a fridge from Cash Generator for your first flat. You get it home and plug it in. There's a knock at the door. There's a guy from LG, who goes to the fridge and tears out some wires, disabling the freezer compartment. Not covered under warranty without the original receipt, you'll have to pay if you want it fixed, bro.

    Eh?

    Your girlfriend finishes with her latest book about a spunky yet vulnerable woman who manages to change a man so he falls in love with her. She gives it to her friend in work. Marian Keyes (the author) comes around to her house and tears out the last two chapters, saying that's for the original purchaser only. She also violently restrains your girlfriend's colleague to prevent her from going and discussing the book with others.

    Hoho!

    You inherit your uncle's cherished and valuable grandfather clock. However, you have to buy your own set of chimes to fit to the clock. Even though the chimes are useless to him (he doesn't have the clock, as he's dead) he's not allowed to give those to you.

    Seriously?

    Your young niece is keen on learning to ski. Since that incident with the tree, you don't ski any more. But you still have your skiing clothes from when you were younger and thinner. You give them to her. North Face's lawyers show up and tell her she's only allowed to wear the gear if she's skiing alone, and nobody can see her.

    Okay, enough...

    Hours of Guitar Hero have inspired you, and you decide to learn for real. You buy a secondhand Stratocaster from your local music shop. After weeks of practice you're feeling pretty good about it all. Your buddies play too, and you decide to try and jam together. But once you're all hooked up in the garage, your guitar doesn't make any sound. It's not the amps, it's not the wires, everyone else's is working fine. There's a tap on the door. You open it, and there's a man from Fender there with his hand out.

    Really, stop.

    Your housemate moves out, but leaves you some of his stuff... a table, a chair with some suspicious stains, and a bookcase. You Febreze the chair, it's pretty cool now. Your girlfriend comes back from visiting her colleague who is in hospital after her savage beating at the hands of an enraged Jenny Colgan who was preventing her from telling her sister about 'Talking to Addison' in her book club. Your girlfriend plops on onto your lap to enjoy the nice big chair. A man from BHS appears from nowhere and shoos you off the chair, saying you're not allowed to seat two people on it, you didn't originally buy it. He vanishes, leaving an invoice. Puzzled, you decide to tidy some stuff up. The bookcase is empty, so you decide to put some of your DVDs and games on it. The first DVD touches one of the shelves, and a man from Ikea peers out from behind, saying you're not allowed to use their product in that way without buying a 'BUT FUKCER SHELVES' pass. Enraged, you grab the table and try to smash him over the head, but it doesn't do any damage. Your table is only a solid object to you until you buy the 'HAMSTAARFLICKER TABLE' pass. No wonder your can of beer just fell right through it.

    (NB: I am not insane)
    Edited by metalangel at 11/05/10 @ 20:41

  • arcam #164 2 years ago

    @metalangel

    But we're not talking about fridges or DVDs or cars or books, we're talking about games, and as we all know games have a special magical quality that only deserves one owner only thankyouverymuch.

    Besides, what about those devs? They work so much harder than an engineer or a film-maker or a man working for Samsung and as such deserve to be paid not only when they sell their product, but every time that game is sold on or given away. We're lucky that we have kind-hearted publishers like EA and Activision who look out for them, and pass on all those extra profits to the people that really deserve them.

    Sure the poor, or kids whose pocket money doesn't stretch to new games might feel the sting, but that's OK as long as we lay the smack down on those parasite retailers that are earning way too much money (pah, they're just after profits, dirty fuckers). Just because they provide a service that thousands of gamers are obviously crying out for, and barely make any money on new games because they are forced into selling games at 60% of the publishers' RRP thanks to hugely preferential deals given to the mega-shops and supermarkets and are shutting down stores and laying off staff as we speak, doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught a thing or two.

    Yeah you spent a while writing that post, but you're forgetting the utterly unique position of games in the universe. Think about that poor games industry - not the small independent devs who make actually risky and innovative games and wouldn't dream of implementing these brave projects, but the ones who really matter - the two or three huge publishing houses that ensure that every game uses the same engine, follows the same DLC strategy and guarantees a predictable and healthy revenue stream.

    After all that's what is really important to people who play games, right?

    edit: I am ignatiusjreilly, not hiding behind another name, just stuck using this account from home.
    Edited by arcam at 11/05/10 @ 20:54

  • azix2 #165 2 years ago

    Losses come from bad games, not from used sales or piracy. What u guys are defending is us paying for their poorer games by paying more for the decent ones. The industry is just getting too big for its diapers. They want to spam games that may not be up to par and make money on all of it. Mass production in a creative entertainment industry is FAIL.

  • smelly #166 2 years ago

    @azix2: What a load of nonsense.

  • Zomoniac #167 2 years ago

    @Metalangel

    All irrelevant. Not one of the industries you mention (only houses and cars have numbers in the same league) has a system where 50% of all sales are used and offer 0 revenue for the manufacturer.

    You also neglect to mention that, in real terms, games are the only one of all the products to which you refer where in the last 15 years the real term cost to you has dramatically decreased, despite the production cost increasing exponentially.

    Besides, none of that matters. The only thing that matters is the pure and simple fact that a lot of games that aren't the 100% guaranteed blockbusters, irrespective of how good they are, are losing a vast amount of money. If these games, some of which are very good, are to be continued to be made, on any major level, then somehow this needs to be paid for by someone, somewhere. If you don't care about the industry not collapsing into bankruptcy enough to get over some moral stance which may have some ideological merit but ultimately isn't practical then just don't by the offending games. As it is, game prices are artificially low (GTA IV, 50+ hours of game with $100m put into it costs less now than many MD or SNES games did 18 years ago, that often lasted 5 hours tops. Factor in inflation and you're paying a third of the real term price for 10 times more game that cost 100 times more to make), yet when Activision tried sticking a fiver on the RRP of MW2 the world exploded with rage. It's an either/either/or. Either prices go up, risky games stop being made or used game sales are artificially restricted. It's the lesser of three evils. Unless you have a genuinely viable way of guaranteeing that risky new game projects will make a profit, even the very good ones, get off your high horse and see that for once this isn't about trying to fleece as much out of consumers as possible, it's to prevent an otherwise certain death.

  • AOFanboi #168 2 years ago

    Honestly, if the games industry is so brittle it cannot survive second-hand trading that book publishers, music companies and car manufacturers have dealt with for a fucking CENTURY and are still going strong, perhaps it needs to die so something actually profitable can take its place. Yes, the margins to the common stores providing these sales are exuberant and people need to learn they should use other channels, but still...

    If EA is serious about their hate for second-hand sales, they should switch to digital distribution or give exclusivity to online companies like play.com ASAP, since if the profitable second-hand sales stopped for GAME et al, they would probably close a majority of their shops since the shovelware that is 90% of games released cannot finance physical stores... but the online trading of second-hand goods would just take the place of the physical store trading.

    And the "online cost" argument, as others have pointed out, does not hold water: The cost to EA is EXACTLY the same if a PS3 owner buys the game and plays himself for a year, or if it switches owner during that year: It still is that one copy accessing the servers for that period. Or do they cut down on re-playability and longevity in their games just to make people stop hitting the servers? Is the yearly releases just a ploy to re-finance the online services?

    Someone wants to double-dip. You do not get to double-dip! The architect does not get a cut when a house is sold a second time, the developer does not get a cut when a game is sold a second time. The Americans call it "First Sale doctrine", and the same principle is enshrined in laws in Europe.

  • metalangel #169 2 years ago

    @Zomoniac: You might want to look into a pre-owned sense of humour. Perhaps I didn't make my 'examples' ridiculous enough to trigger the one you've got right now.

  • Zomoniac #170 2 years ago

    The architect does not get a cut when a house is sold a second time

    No, which is why they will ensure they make a profit on the first sale. Are you volunteering to pay $50m for a copy of a game?

    It's all an odd scenario, as a) gamers are a very whiny, vocal and observant people, and b) games have a very clearly defined and recognised pricing structure, unlike cars or books. Books are sold at anything from £5 to £50 or more, cars from £5,000 to many hundreds of thousands. It's very variable. If a book is sold for a tenner and the publisher starts to notice used sales are eating their profits, they might release the sequel at £12. The next time Ford bring out a new model of a car they might add £2k on their profit margin because of a dip in profits due to increased used sales. And nobody would bat an eyelid, you can guarantee it would go unnoticed. Game publishers can't do that, because if one of them even thought about trying to put the RRP of a new game up to £60 then the internet would act like the world had ended.

  • Zomoniac #171 2 years ago

    You might want to look into a pre-owned sense of humour. Perhaps I didn't make my 'examples' ridiculous enough to trigger the one you've got right now.

    I'm aware your 'examples' were ridiculous, but I thought they were humourously exaggerated versions of your stance, in which case my point still stands. If the whole thing was sarcasm and you do in fact support this move then consider my comment retracted.

  • Zomoniac #172 2 years ago

    They work so much harder than an engineer or a film-maker or a man working for Samsung

    1. You can't resell a cinema ticket.
    2. No film or anything Samsung make has a market made up of 50% second-hand sales, or anywhere close.

  • arcam #173 2 years ago

    You can resell a DVD.

    What is the reason DVDs don't have a 50% used market? And what is the reason publishers don't put up the prices of games? It's not because of angry internet men.


    Edited by arcam at 11/05/10 @ 23:56

  • Zomoniac #174 2 years ago

    What is the reason DVDs don't have a 50% used market?

    Because the used culture isn't there. Because when you take a DVD to the checkout in HMV they don't try to force you to buy a used one for a quid less.

  • itsfuzzy #175 2 years ago

    All developers will pick this up in the future, like DLC. Another cash cow.
    There goes the game rental market and pre owned market in the future

  • arcam #176 2 years ago

    Because the used culture isn't there. Because when you take a DVD to the checkout in HMV they don't try to force you to buy a used one for a quid less

    Sorry to repeat, but why? To both of those questions. We all know the answer but it's not really been mentioned much in this 200-comment thread. Why is the used market so huge in games, why can't publishers just put up the prices like any normal industry?

  • azix2 #177 2 years ago

    @smelly What did you accomplish there?

  • Zomoniac #178 2 years ago

    Why is the used market so huge in games, why can't publishers just put up the prices like any normal industry?

    My guess would be that it's simply because the game retailers were the first to really try the extreme push (to the point of actively trying to discourage anyone from buying new and not stocking any new games more than a few months old) to try and make all sales into second-hand ones. If you went to a shop selling second-hand and new books and took a new book to the counter, they wouldn't scan it in and say "we've got this one in stock pre-owned as well, you should buy that instead of this one". It's a level of aggression to try and discourage new sales completely that's never really been seen before. When people buy a used book or car or TV it's usually because they are making a massive saving, 50% or more in most cases with those examples, and they do so out of choice, because they've found out for themselves that it's cheaper. Not because a 5% saving has been forcibly rammed down their throat when they weren't paying attention.

    Re the second point, I think I've covered that. Gamers, perhaps more so than any other group of people in the history of the universe, seem to have some ridiculous self-righteous sense of entitlement, that games should never go up in price irrespective of increased costs or inflation, that they should have servers that run forever for free, that all DLC, regardless of when it was made, should be free, whether you buy the game new or used or just pirate it, and if it cripples the companies then tough shit for being big corporations and they should all die if they even think about trying to actually make some money back on their products. They simply wouldn't tolerate a price cut. I'm entirely in favour of one, I think in terms of what you get for your money compared to a film or Blu-Ray, the tech involved and the entertainment value offered that many big-budget games are ridiculously cheap. GTA IV has a runtime 20 times that of the Avatar Blu-Ray, and cost twice as much. For the enjoyment it gave me I'd have been more than happy to pay £60-70 for it and still seen it as good value, I got 50 hours out of it and still haven't done a fair bit of it. But I'm in a very, very small minority, and most would just see a price rise as nothing but evil corporations out to rip them off, and a 500 page comment thread with the phrase 'bend over' appearing every other post would appear on EG within minutes.

  • arcam #179 2 years ago

    Started a long reply but it's late, sorry.

    Funnily enough I'd agree with higher prices with some games, and lower for others. Some are worth more than the purchase price for sure.

  • metalangel #180 2 years ago

    @Zomoniac: I refer you to my previous comment about "entitlement". I don't expect everything to be free. But I also think my Live subscription to be enough. Why do EA think they're a special case? They ain't, and if this somehow means "the collapse of the industry" (alarmist much?) then fine. Do you really expect much sympathy for a company using tactics like this to shaft us out of more money?

  • PlugMonkey #181 2 years ago

    arcam
    "You can resell a DVD.

    What is the reason DVDs don't have a 50% used market?"

    Because, as pointed out earlier in the thread, and on countless other threads stretching back to the dawn of time:

    WATERSTONES DO NOT SELL 2ND HAND BOOKS! HMV DO NOT SELL 2ND HAND DVDS! WHEN YOU GO TO THE COUNTER WITH YOUR BRAND NEW COPY OF AVATAR, A CAREFULLY DRILLED SALES CLERK WILL NOT ASK YOU IF YOU'D RATHER HAVE A 2ND HAND COPY FOR A FEW QUID LESS! 2ND HAND BOOK OR DVD SALES ARE A SECONDARY DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL, 2ND HAND VIDEO GAMES SALES HAVE TAKEN OVER THE PRIMARY DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL!

    *tap* *tap* Hello? Hello? Is this thing on?

    Seriously. That is why. It IS the reason. You may not like EA's response to it, but that IS the reason.

    2nd hand games sales have been going on forever, just like 2nd hand books and 2nd hand DVDs and 2nd hand CDs, and nobody gave a shit.

    In the last few years games retailers' behaviour has changed dramatically so that they are now deliberately going out of their way to throttle the sales of new games, becuase they make a shitload more money on 2nd hand sales. That is why this has now become an issue when it wasn't 10 years ago, and still isn't for film studios and book publishers.

    It is unsustainable for the publishers. Yes, losses are made on bad or unsuccessful games, but those losses should be covered by the successful games. You can't do that if you literally cannot get enough new copies into peoples' hands before the high street retailers cut the sales off at the source.

    Seriously. That really, really is why. You can spout all the analogies you like, but until you find one where the manufacturer's channel for selling new goods to the consumer is being cut off, you won't have one that fits.

    But, if we must torture analogies, this one from metalangel got closest:

    No? Fine. You go to McDonalds, and you give your friend one of your McNuggets. But they don't like the honey mustard dip, and go to ask for BBQ. The clerk tells them to fuck off as THEY didn't personally buy the McNuggets, so they're not a customer even though they are in possession of food purchased there. They then seize the nugget, throw it on the floor and stomp on it so some of the batter comes off. Sure, it's still a McNugget, but it's not as good, because that apparently is all you deserve.

    No, they wouldn't stamp on the McNugget. As you weren't the original customer, they'd charge you 20p for a BBQ sauce.

    Hang on a minute... ;)

  • kangarootoo #182 2 years ago

    @dr_faulk

    Fair enough, my bad. I just speed read corporate knob the first time. It did occur to me afterwards that money-knob was an odd way of laying down an insult :)

  • kangarootoo #183 2 years ago

    Look, this whole car analogy fascination is bollox. Yet again, with a huge sense of self importance, I shall clarify the situation for everyone :)


    The second hand car market is still a source of revenue for car manufacturers, via spare parts and the servicing network. Every person that buys a second hand BMW will end up giving money to BMW one way or another. This is NOT the case with games.


    IF second car sales generated no further revenue for BMW (as with games), and in fact the use of that second hand car ended up costing BMW money (as with any game that has an online element), BMW would tell owners of second hand cars to fuck right off unless they paid extra for the "online service".

    Simple as that. Second hand games cost the publishers money. Second hand cars make the car manufacturers money. Anything beyond the money is irrelevant, as it is the only reason either industry does what it does.

    Letters of thanks to the usual address :)

  • PlugMonkey #184 2 years ago

    The frustrating thing about these threads is that people invariably get so caught up in righteous indignation and coming up with bizarre analogies like "This is like buying a set of ratchet screwdrivers, and then being told by Draper that you can only loosen screws with them" that they never address the issue: that video games developers find themselves in a pretty much unique position of being in direct competition with their own retail arm, and if not this, then what exactly should they do about it?

  • kangarootoo #185 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey

    Very well put.

  • metalangel #186 2 years ago

    PlugMonkey's last few comments are far too reasoned and insightful to be really comments on EG, surely. ;)

  • dr_faulk #187 2 years ago

    As much as I like to use analogies, they do break down pretty quickly.

    As I said earlier, I don't mind paying for online play. If I had paid $10 for the two solid years I got out of CoD4, I'd have considered it the best value for money.

    A a lot of sensible people in this thread have reasoned out perfectly logical business reasons behind their actions. But I think considering EA's past and general trends, everyone has the right to automatically assume it's just EA being greedy again.

    Seriously, who the hell wants to play a f**king golf game!?

  • AOFanboi #188 2 years ago

    But if the value of the online component is $10 (whether on top of the $50 Gold Live subscription or not), should I not have the option of subtracting $10 from the retail pricte to not play online when I buy it new if I do not want to play online? Should they not sell online as a separate component from the start then? Otherwise it should be considered a part of the game as sold and is tied to the copy (whether played by the intial buyer or the next) and EA's argument falls because their assumption is based on the buyer eventually losing interest in playing online and thus stopping accessing the servers.

    It's all moot anyway, eventually someone will make a sports game with a MMO model.
    Edited by AOFanboi at 16/05/10 @ 20:04

  • Dogzilla #189 2 years ago

    I hate change.

    Especially when it inconveniences me.

    Greedy Cunts.