EA: Project $10 "a positive experience"

By Robert Purchese Published 11 May, 2010

Riccitiello not opposing pre-owned sales.

EA boss John Riccitiello has called Project Ten Dollar and the new EA Sports Online Pass initiative a "positive consumer experience" that offers a "boat-load" of content buyers otherwise wouldn't have access to.

Development teams can afford to stick around and work on the IP for longer, Riccitiello explained to investors during an earnings call this evening. He also said this business model allows EA to halve its title output and focus on quality.

The EA Sports Online Pass, revealed earlier today, is provided for free as a code to first-hand buyers. This needs to be entered for access to "online services, features and bonus content" - even multiplayer.

Pre-owned EA Sports games contain no free code, so second-hand buyers will need to fork out $10 for the Online Pass.

Riccitiello later admitted that EA currently has no way to distinguish between a first-time buyer and those snapping up second-hand copies. He could therefore offer no comparison between pre-Project Ten Dollar second-hand game sales and those after.

But apparently that's not the point. "I don't view what we're doing is opposition to the second-sale market," Riccitiello went on to say. EA, he believes, has moved its business "direct to consumers".

Fellow EA exec John Schappert summed up the EA mindset and said: "Our goal is to turn customers from thinking that it ends with the disc to it starts with the disc."

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (72) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Dr.Frappers #1 2 years ago

    Project $10/£10 - as much as i love Mass Effect 2 (and i do love it) - i'm pretty sure that i'd be pissed off spending £10 on the Cerberus Network....

  • StooMonster #2 2 years ago

    Hrm... Mass Effect 2 gives me Inferno Armor for pre-order, then tries to charge me for the Equaliser Pack that consists of Inferno Armor plus couple of other bits.

    Let's see fewer "positive experiences" like this one please EA.

  • DirtyDubs #3 2 years ago

    People wont agree I know but I think it's a smart move by EA. They will end up getting more revenue for their games as they gain nothing from encouraging second hand game sales.
    Also by releasing small standalone introductory games (like Battlefield 1943) prior to their AAA titles, they can both promote the new game and gain revenue during the development cycle. This is particularly good if they introduce cheap/free content for their AAA game that you bought new. It also helps gauge consumer response for marketing and promotion.
    I know it's not popular to say that you like EA developed/produced games but when I take a quick look at some of their games in my collection (Command&Conquer, Battlefield: BadCompany2, Fifa et al) I'm glad they are doing well.

    Re edit: They actually posted huge losses but their revenue is getting better. Basically what I'm saying is that it's one of the better ways to increase their revenue without pissing off too many customers
    Edited by 2 at 12/05/10 @ 00:15

  • Graham_Bark #4 2 years ago

    I agree. I dont think the issue is with the principle, the main problem lies in the poor quality and lack of quantity of the content that has so far been delivered. £10 is a very hefty piece of DLC, and so far the DLC thats been provided by Project $10 hasnt exactly matched up to that.

  • Nuronv #5 2 years ago

    For a company that has EA's reputation for money spinning they sure are selling this to me well.
    So I buy a second hand game and give you an extra £10, I see what is in it for you but what is in it for me? I mean if you are planning to give your customers free periodic content with in exchange this extra free money your generating please make it public because at the moment you just look like money grabbing vampires (yes the shit sparkly kind).
    Edited by 1 at 12/05/10 @ 00:05

  • azix2 #6 2 years ago

    another idiot who thinks he is talking to more idiots got an interview

  • DirtyDubs #7 2 years ago

    @ Nuronv - I hear what your saying but tbh I don't have much sympathy for SOME of the game retailers. When you give a £5 to someone for a game and then try and pawn it off for £25 then your asking for trouble in my book. The mark up on second hand games is big. Remember, they don't have to source the games as people bring them to the shop and they can set whatever price they like. They may have also made money on the very game that was brought back to them.
    Just like EA or any other company they (game retailers) are trying to maximise their profits but they aren't the shinning light that some hold them up to be. I've seen first hand these shops ripping off more people than I care to remember.

  • Sweefyt #8 2 years ago

    "a "positive consumer experience" that offers a "boat-load" of content buyers otherwise wouldn't have access to"

    bahahaaha yeah boat-loads of new DLC that they'll charge an extra ten bucks a piece for.

    It's not their fault to be fair. The digital age is the first consumer base willing to pay for shit like this. As evident by the sales numbers of the MW2 stimulus pack and that World of Warcraft horse.

    How does it feel having no principles?

  • DirtyDubs #9 2 years ago

    But you only pay the $10 (for the most part) if you don't buy the retail game new. That's my understanding of it. If you just want the game cheap for the single player etc then just buy it second hand and don't get the DLC.

    Well, that's enough of my prattling on. Business wise, it just seems to make sense to me.

  • paketep #10 2 years ago

    The only positive experience here is the fact that I'm not going to buy from EA anymore.

    EA, Ubi, Activision... Whoa, that's a lot of money to buy from Valve and the indies. Thank you for being such assholes, Riccitiello, Kotick and whatsyourname-idiot-who-thought-the-Ubi-DRM.

  • Nuronv #11 2 years ago

    @DirtyDubs
    I agree most pre-owned games are disgustingly marked up, however if they cant make money from new sales how else can they stay in business?
    Seems a bit of an unsolvable situation

  • Chazmeister #12 2 years ago

    @ Dirtydubs

    I hear what you're saying re the mark up retailers put on used games, but how is that any of our fault, as in we the consumer? Why are we the ones that are having to pay for all this?

    I really don't think second hand sales impinge on new sales that much anyway. If I buy a game secondhand it's because I never had any intention of buying it as new. If buying it secondhand means I'd either miss out on a chunk of gameplay or have to cough up £5-£10 then I probably wouldn't buy the game second hand either. Which means no sale for anyone and I don't get to play their game, and I don't see how that benefits anyone.

    Take Mass Effect 2, I suspect I'll pick it up second hand sometime, but if I have to pay £10 before I can download any of the DLC for it, then I just won't download any of the DLC for it, simple as that, which means EA lose out on some money. All this project $10 is going to do is kill off sales of DLC to people who buy their games secondhand. I seriously don't think it's going to turn secondhand sales into sales of new copies.

  • Eraysor #13 2 years ago

    I don't really see it as much of a problem for a couple reasons.

    Firstly, if I cared enough about a particular game to want to consume it in its entirety, I probably would buy it instantly at launch for the full price.

    Secondly, if I don't care massively about the game but I still fancy the extra content, it's easy enough nowadays to pick up a new copy online for the same price, if not less, than a ridiculously price-inflated preowned copy from GAME et al. I bought Resonance of Fate new yesterday for £25 online, and I'd imagine you'd find it tricky to get a cheaper preowned copy.

    EDIT: I would agree with the first poster in that paying for the Cerberus pack would be a bit of a waste. I probably wouldn't have bought Shale for Dragon Age either, which would have been a shame as he's probably the most enjoyable character.
    Edited by 1 at 12/05/10 @ 00:57

  • speed182 #14 2 years ago

    Two words EA: Greedy cunts!

  • mkreku #15 2 years ago

    "Our goal is to turn customers from thinking that it ends with the disc to it starts with the disc."

    No, that is not your goal, Riccitiello. Let me rephrase that for you:

    "Our goal is to turn customers from thinking that the paying ends with the disc to the paying starts with the disc."

  • alcides #16 2 years ago

    Whatever evil vicious person that came up with this idea: Please die gruesomly.

    Here's how it goes : EA comes up with the same upgraded sports game every year. We bite. But we see what they're doing. So, to keep going we sell it on so that the newest patch be less expensive. Then we bite again and so on...
    And frankly, we wouldn't buy it otherwise.

    Dear EA, like the talking baby clock said to the XIIICrew : you overreach yourselves.

  • sfp_noodle #17 2 years ago

    To a student like me, pre-owned games are a gods gift to me. I rarely buy something brand new unless it is something I am really looking forward to. Most games I wait 6 months for to get cheap. Some new games also drop in price quite quickly. Final Fantasy 13 is currently £17.99 on GAME's website if anyone is interested by the way.

    The maximum I am willing to spend on a game is £15-20. I got Battlefield cheap via an Amazon price glitch so got lucky with that. The only other EA game I buy is Fifa, so here's hoping the supermarkets have a price war again so I can actually afford it. If this whole $10 thing starts to creep into games by other publishers then I will start to get worried. Publishers have to understand that at £40 a pop, games are hardly affordable as they are. I'd love to supports devs as much as I can, but they can't hold us to random for our support.

  • 8bitMofo #18 2 years ago

    Project Ten Dollar, Sucky Sucky.

  • Fur_Cough #19 2 years ago

    EA aren't going to be the last ones to do this, and it draws battle lines against the struggling retailers, who make a lot of money out of second hand market they control. Games will keep their full price for longer; and given that online retail is cheaper, the overheads of the highstreet store will become unsustainable. Finally, there's more incentive to download and skip the retailer all together, since one of the main barriers to downloaded titles is that you can't trade them in; while actually the costs of download distribution are far smaller than physical disk.

    So I see this as the way in which publishers will finally be able to control the distribution of their products - which is what they've wanted to do for years.

  • hahayou #20 2 years ago

    Hey, it's not all bad: if you aren't interested in the online play you can sell the code and quite possibly end up paying less than you would for a used copy.
    The last time I bought a new EA game they shut the servers down three months later anyway; I'd appreciate an option to take a discount rather than pay for that level of service.

    e: new as in shrink-wrapped rather than new as in just launched, that is.
    Edited by 1 at 12/05/10 @ 03:27

  • Cataferal #21 2 years ago

    For. It makes sense for EA, and may force retailers to lower the prices of used games to compete.

  • Tangled #22 2 years ago

    You know, now I think about it, he's right. This project is bound to be an enriching experience.

  • Upface #23 2 years ago

    "Development teams can afford to stick around and work on the IP for longer"

    Yeah right, I can really imagine the dev team for Fifa 11 still working on new content once Fifa 12 is on the shelves.....

  • Rack #24 2 years ago

    He said they can afford to, not that they will.

    I could understand why EA were doing this, but at the same time the online component is so clearly functionality taken from the game it destroys the credibility of the claim that this is new content that otherwise wouldn't be available.

    In one article he's lying about the impact of the policy and announcing the real point is to screw people sideways in the future.
    Edited by 1 at 12/05/10 @ 06:49

  • secombe #25 2 years ago

    'Halve their output'...? Not a chance, that to me says that we "only" get FIFA (for example) every two years, with the cash made from this idea used to support and update the game.

    Nice idea (brilliant, in fact), but it's never going to happen. At best they will just keep the previous games server on for a few months and maybe update the teams/players for a bit longer.

  • Bobbus74 #26 2 years ago

    Seriously EA expect us to believe they're doing this to benefit the consumer? They're just trying to squeeze money out of people who bought 2nd- hand games. EA don't receive anything from those preowned sales but by charging $10 for a main part of a game eg multiplayer, they are coining it in and pissing off the consumers.

  • afghan_jones #27 2 years ago

    Fuck you EA, this is like a mugger trying to convince you hes taking your money for your own good.

    Utter bullshit. If you want to fuck over gamestop etc, please have the balls to say so.

  • metalangel #28 2 years ago

    Does he smell what he's shovelling? This is nothing more than a cash grab, if wasn't he wouldn't put the fucking dollar amount in the name! EA had their chance, but all their Project Ten Dorrah games that I've bought (Saboteur, Dragon Arse, Bad Company 2) have had pathetic "bonus" content. Not worth it at all. Combine this with the Online Passes and I don't really care to encourage them by giving them any more of my money.

  • 5h1nj1 #29 2 years ago

    I hate that guy, really. Lying piece of...

  • masterson #30 2 years ago

    One thing that differentiates second hand DVD/CD and game sales is that (online) games have an ongoing cost to the publisher.
    I actually think that this is a fair and reasonable idea when used for accessing online functionality.
    Most games can be had heavily discounted a month or two after release anyway which is nice for us (as we get a shiny new product) and for the publishers (as they at least see something for their troubles). We just need to learn to play through some of our no doubt extensive backlogs rather than picking up new games on release day (If only I could follow my own advice...).
    Of course - reducing the initial retail price is the most effective way of reducing second hand sales (and to some extent piracy), but no publisher seems able to make that leap just yet.

  • zubnut #31 2 years ago

    The DLC thing I can understand and accept but locking out multiplayer on a 2nd hand game when the original owner is no longer using the multiplayer is pure greed.

    I think they have just realised that the DLC plan isn't going to make them enough money because basically they charge too much for what it is usually crap and people who buy 2nd hand either are too tight or can't afford to buy it or are not fooled into believing they need it at all.

    This may possibly be a step too far mr prickitello...

  • flanker22 #32 2 years ago

    retailers already make a 30% profit yield off the first sale of the game, thats WAYYYY MORE THAN what they damn well are entitled to.

    retailers are merchants, developers are artistans, and because of the used game market, now the retailers are making more off a copy of a game than the developer/publisher and they didnt even create the game for fucks sake. The industry really needs to change where the developers make the highest amount of money, then the publisher and retailers split the rest.

  • metalangel #33 2 years ago

    @masterson: online should not be an issue here. EA insisted they be allowed to use their own servers when they joined Live. They don't give us a choice of hosting a game peer to peer. And what difference is there to them if I play my copy of Madden for 12 months or if I only play 6 months and then someone else plays it for 6 months? 12 months of server usage either way!

  • jellyhead #34 2 years ago

    flanker, that's an issue for the lawyers and contracts they draw up not for us consumers. Why should we pay because EA don't like the way a distributor makes money?

  • reality_cheque #35 2 years ago

    If it makes games shops lower their prices for pre-owned, this can only be a good thing.

  • Doctor_What #36 2 years ago

    You do all realise that he's running a business, don't you? His job is to make money. If his company fails to make money then all those interesting EA titles (Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, Burnout, etc) won't be there any more. That would be a shame for us customers. If his plan helps fund development of those interesting titles then I can see how it's a win-win situation.

    Of course there needs to be balance between cost and quality, but it will become obvious pretty quickly when people think they have good value and when they don't.

    EA need money to make games and I'd rather my money went to them than to GAME. It's not a perfect system but at least he's trying to work out a viable business model to sustain games development in the future.

    People above are complaining 'we customers are having to pay for this'. Yes, that's the point of being a customer. Games prices have barely changed in the last decade but they cost much more to make now. What more do you want? I don't like paying more for my games, but I'm not going to whine that it's unfair when plain reality is forcing the business in this direction. I might not like it, but games are business and business needs to make money or we have no more games. It's as simple as that.

  • Kerome #37 2 years ago

    Hmm, the whole Project 10 thing is a bit yuck, if you ask me.

    It'll probably just end up driving people away from second hand games to stuff that's done by indie teams and distributed via steam, it's bound to lessen the appeal of the second hand market and split off a chunk of consumers, some of whom will go full-price and others will not buy. Should be an interesting study subject for some grad student.

  • dingo75 #38 2 years ago

    @sfp_noodle:

    Thanks mate for the heads-up concerning FF13 on GAME!
    Just ordered and included a cheap copy of "Dante's Inferno" for the Xbox as well.
    Appreciated. :)

  • IainMcKenzie #39 2 years ago

    I can't remember the last time I actually found a relatively new game, say within the last year or two, cheaper second-hand in a store than I could find it new online. The second-hand market for games is massively lucrative for the retailers and does harm sales for the developers. I would much rather support developers, even large ones like EA, than some crappy shop that makes its money fleecing crappy accessories and aggressively pushing pre-owned games to clueless mums.

  • jellyhead #40 2 years ago

    As long as they don't demand that i use the code just to play the game then i can play the game a bit and decide if i want to keep it and then use the code. That way i can sell the game on with the code and get a better deal. Yay.

    I can see the 'bargains' threads on forums becoming increasingly popular because of this stingy move.

  • Reihn #41 2 years ago

    Somebody pinch me: As far as I'm concerned, this sounds like a totally reasonable idea.

    - If you buy our game new and pay us + the developers for it, we'll give get the single player and the online multiplayer.

    - If you buy our game second hand, and neither we nor the developers see a dime of that sale, then you can enjoy everything that's on the disc (the single player) but we're not going to service you with online multi, thank you very much.

    From a developer/publisher perspective, having to maintain online features and multiplayer for people who got your game second hand is a double-loss.

  • metalangel #42 2 years ago

    I'm not typing the "who cares how many people take a particular copy online, only one of them can use it at once" thing out yet again. Read the previous comments before you post, please, people.

  • MrChuckles #43 2 years ago

    You do realise that this will drive DOWN the price of second hand EA games meaning all you whinging students will be able to pick up the single player experience for EVEN LESS!

    If you want to play the extra online elements and add ons, then suck it up and pay for it...

    Sounds like everyone wins apart from GAME which is great in my opinion.

  • Gunspunk #44 2 years ago

    How can you guys be saying this makes sense? I'm not saying that these massive chains with their huge mark ups on games are the way forward but what about people selling things themselves? I sell games on Play or on ebay and at the end of the day, I payed for that game and I own it, just like any other thing I buy (a car or a book or whatever). Its my right to sell it and the chain continues...that publisher, just like that car manufacturer has no right to claim money off of anyone in that situation.

    Incidentally, how the bloody hell are they ever going to know whats pre owned and whats borrowed for example...does the code link to an account or a console? If i lend the game to a friend are they gonna have to shell out $/£10 to play it online?

  • VicViper #45 2 years ago

    Totally agree with Docter_What, what do you want the companies to do?
    Its costs alot to make the kind of game you expect these days, all those bells and whistles takes serious time and money. The cheap prices online are probally down to the online retailer being able to take the hit in profits as its not a brick n morter store.

    I can understand the desire for cheaper games but theres some sort of werid disconnect people have where I wonder if they think that the money games are made on comes from somewhere other than the games/DLC sales, I'm sure theres capital and investors/share holders but sales is where the cash is made.

    Thats not saying that games can cost more than within reason though, I don't want to be ripped off either.

  • PlugMonkey #46 2 years ago

    It won't be long before it's all digital download, and EA are just starting prepping people for the idea of the disc not being the be all and end all. This is good. Look at the PC. It's already there. Steam is fucking awesome. You either buy it full price when it comes out, or you wait a few months and pick it up at 75% off a few months later.

    Or you buy it 2nd hand from somewhere like greenmangaming.com. Either way, you pay less.

    EA are just testing the water and introducing people to it gradually. Even a couple of years ago I'd feel gipped that I didn't get a physical disc for my money on PC, now I can't see the point in the extra clutter.

  • MrChuckles #47 2 years ago

    @VicViper & DoctorWhat - Hear Hear... I am both a developer AND a gamer. Currently i hate GAME second hand market being in the same shop as full price, but my gamer side obviously buys games from there because it's cheaper.

    In a perfect world, you'd buy the base game (Which is quite small) for a tenner, and then if you enjoy it, you spend more to unlock the rest of it.

    If you don't like a game, you haven't wasted 40 quid (Which i always hate) and if you don't finish the story, you'll only pay 20 quid or so. Also, second hand games sales would drop to a fiver, which means you can pick up loads of games to try out and spend extra cash on the ones you actually like.

    The days of just being able to play all of your favourite full games for £20 buy and £10 trade in are sadly coming to an end, but it will mean more money to go to publishers and developers and not to GAME and it's competitors..

    If anyone compares this to the 'buying a car anaolgy', i'll slap them.. :). Please only compare it to DVD or CD sales, and then tell me of any shops which sell new and 2nd hand on adjacent shelves? EA have to do this because teh stores are ripping them off.

  • ghiest #48 2 years ago

    Why don't they just sell games cheaper and then pay one off fee for multi player in the first place. Personally 95% of the games I own I never even bother with MP aspect of it, sports games especially.

  • jellyhead #49 2 years ago

    For me it will just mean fewer pre-orders as i will wait for reviews and sales before purchasing a game new. I still think it's a shitty move to make consumers pay for your battle with your retailer's margins.

    edit:gramur
    Edited by 1 at 12/05/10 @ 11:19

  • ignatiusjreilly #50 2 years ago

    Why don't they just sell games cheaper and then pay one off fee for multi player in the first place. Personally 95% of the games I own I never even bother with MP aspect of it

    I think you just answered your own question ;)

  • PlugMonkey #51 2 years ago

    MrChuckles
    "In a perfect world, you'd buy the base game (Which is quite small) for a tenner, and then if you enjoy it, you spend more to unlock the rest of it. "

    That sounds suspiciously like EA's recently proposed 'large, paid for trial version' that everyone got so up in arms about a while ago...

    jellyhead
    "I still think it's a shitty move to make consumers pay for your battle with your retailers margins. "

    It is at that, but unfortunately the only way they can make any impact on the retailer. They're not really making the consumers pay. They're making the consumers make the retailers charge less for 2nd hand by devaluing the product; but it's still it's the consumer that'll have to do their dirty work for them, as there really is no other way.

  • ignatiusjreilly #52 2 years ago

    That sounds suspiciously like EA's recently proposed 'large, paid for trial version' that everyone got so up in arms about a while ago...

    EA's proposed mode would have you pay for the first part of the game before the rest of it has even been made. That's pretty different and basically paid beta-testing.

    I'm also a fan of charging varying amounts for games with varying amounts of content. Hook people in with cheap prices to start, and make your game good enough atht they'll want to keep playing. Or just admit that GTA IV is worth much more than the latest FIFA update and price them accordingly.

  • MrChuckles #53 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey - I think Xbox Live On Demand games are going to start doing that as soon as this year. You can buy the full game in a bricks and mortar shop, or buy it episodically on Xbox Live... Now, if i just had a larger hard drive!

  • ignatiusjreilly #54 2 years ago

    I think Xbox Live On Demand games are going to start doing that as soon as this year.

    Wow, awesome! I hope it is a success.

  • PlugMonkey #55 2 years ago

    ignatiusjreilly
    "EA's proposed mode would have you pay for the first part of the game before the rest of it has even been made. That's pretty different and basically paid beta-testing."

    They seemed to be saying both. Part of it seemed to be gauging interest in riskier new IP and seeing what direction it needed to go in were it to be given a full AAA production, but part of it seemed to be breaking up how you would pay for established franchises that they already knew they were going to do the full shebang with.

    Either way, it wouldn't quite be paid-for beta testing as, whatever the plan for the future of the game was, what I would be paying for would (or should, at least) be final quality. I don't pay to be a beta tester because the game is full of bugs that they're getting me to look for. It would have to be either a small complete game at an appropriate price point, of the first chapter of a larger game at an appropriate price point, for the simple reason that if it's anything else we won't buy it and it'll be doomed to fail.

    My real point is that people get far too carried away with 'Project $10' being some sort of dark portent of a terrible future. The future surely is digital distribution, and my experience of that so far has been pretty positive.

  • ignatiusjreilly #56 2 years ago

    The future surely is digital distribution

    That is something we can both agree on. DD means a much more environmentally friendly industry, lower costs and more money going to people who make the games (hopefully).

  • jellyhead #57 2 years ago

    As long as my bum doesn't get sore they can do what they want but given EA's position on shutting down servers they would be the last people i'd go all digital with. Especially with Pachter saying they should up the price of "Project Long Time" and people will still grab their ankles for the games.

    I'm waiting to see what happens. Interesting times.

  • makeamazing #58 2 years ago

    If your silly enough to buy a pre-owned copy that is only £2 or £3 cheaper than a brand new copy, then this is what you deserve. If you buy the game at £15 later on, you can make a good judgement call on if you want this access, and the game will still be pretty cheap and you know that some money will be going to the developers.

    I also think this will be very useful in spotting "old games" being sold as new in Game etc... because when you get the game home and find out the code has already been used, you pretty much can be sure it wasnt a new copy :D

  • sneetch #59 2 years ago

    @Chazmeister
    I really don't think second hand sales impinge on new sales that much anyway. If I buy a game secondhand it's because I never had any intention of buying it as new. If buying it secondhand means I'd either miss out on a chunk of gameplay or have to cough up £5-£10 then I probably wouldn't buy the game second hand either. Which means no sale for anyone and I don't get to play their game, and I don't see how that benefits anyone.

    I suppose their point would be that buying it second hand doesn't benefit either EA or the developers they're publishing for. So if you weren't going to buy it first hand then why would they care if you don't buy it second hand (or indeed don't play it)?

    In my experience based on the shops near me the difference between buying first hand and second hand is about €5. Buying it first hand would save €5 on the cost of this "project $10" content.

  • jellyhead #60 2 years ago

    Why should they care if you bought it second-hand or not? There's still the same number of people playing the game and so the same number of resources being used. If i've sold the game then i'm no longer playing it and someone else is. Doesn't matter to EA at all unless they're going for subscription based fees. I can't see why consumers should be put out because EA are too scared to stand up to Game's business practices.

  • Gastrian #61 2 years ago

    For all the people complaining about the move it would be wise to remember that if you buy a game second hand then you are not a consumer, at least not an EA consumer.

    You have not bought the game from EA as they are not involved in the chain of second hand sales so if you don't support them why should they support you? A comment was made earlier that once you've bought the disc you own the disc and should be allowed to do with it as you see fit. That's a fair point but do you own the servers that run the multiplayer side of the game? No. So why should they transfer when you sell the game on?

    At the end of the day you get what you pay for and if you pay less you are going to get less.

  • jellyhead #62 2 years ago

    EA made the choice not to use MS servers because they wanted to have the ability to shutdown the servers for a game at their whim due to their business being based on incremental updates. They build that rod for their own backs and now we're being beaten with it and we're supposed to be grateful? Classy.

  • Shikasama #63 2 years ago

    I would just like to inform EA that I have a degree.

    I am not an idiot, stop trying to persuade me that I am.

  • VibratingDonkey #64 2 years ago

    "Our goal is to turn customers from thinking that it ends with the disc to it starts with the disc."

    This is what's scary. They're starting to enact their right to detail exactly what parts of the software the license allows the user access to, when, and for how long. They did it with Bad Company 2 already, where all of the supposed free maps appear to already be on the disc. And there's your "boatloads of content" I bet. And I wager this Online Pass gives you one year. Either it's detailed in the EULA or EA will just use their right to shut the servers down and allocate them to FIFA 201X.

    There's no way Tussle McBlaze can be serious about halving the title output. Says this would allow them to, but why would they?

    And this a good point someone else brought up:
    If I buy a game new and play it for a year, I will have compensated EA for that year of online access.
    If I buy a game new and play it for six months and then sell it to someone who plays it for another six months, both of us will have compensated EA for a year of online access.

    How does that make sense?

  • dubdivision #65 2 years ago

    will only work for the top few franchises and will seriously reduce the value of your trade ins, which will make you hesitate in making a gamble on any full price games you buy.

  • azix2 #66 2 years ago

    You can't assume second hand games will cost less because of these things. All second hand games need to do is cost less than new games to be viable and some will say by 10$. Game rentals and second hand sales are a necessary part of the industry and thats why I hate this move so much. Its like they are trying to make their consumers be only the ones who buy new... the elite u could say. Not every second hand store is like game or gamestop. There are other countries in the world besides the US and EU countries and even in those places ppl buy used from other gamers and stores that sell used games cheaply. Those ppl will have a lot more trouble with this than a game or gamestop would

  • Stuz359 #67 2 years ago

    I can see where they are coming from but I still resent the idea. I buy a select amount of new games, ones which I am sure I want to keep and replay (Mass Effect, FF games, Mario and Zelda, you know, the really good ones). The rest I do buy second hand and trade them in for others, becuase I know once I finish them, I may never play that game again. This allows other gamers to enjoy the game rather than just gathering dust on my shelf, and this makes perfect sense to me.

    This is an enforced charge and it just feels wrong to me.

  • bleeptest #68 2 years ago

    I've got to throw my hat into the 'it's a great idea' ring....

    Wanna save on games - get over the hype and wait a year or so and you'll save a few quid second hand (whether you buy the extra content or not).
    Wanna play stuff now - then you get extra stuff 'for free'.

    It suits my way of playing games - I buy very few, 2 or 3 a year, but usually finish them. I don't normally buy any DLC because I don't feel like I'd get value from it. If those 2 or 3 games came with 'free' DLC, then great.

    It gets wrong if they just use the code to unlock core gameplay (like local multiplayer in sports games for example) or content that's on the disc already but 'hidden'.

  • MrChuckles #69 2 years ago

    @Stuz359 - Well, You currently buy 2nd hand games for £30 and sell for £20. Under EA's proposal the value of 2nd hand games will drop, so you'll buy for £25 and sell for £18. If you don't want the multiplayer stuff (I.e. you play single player and get rid of it) you are £2 up. and if you want all the extra stuff (which you say you won't both with) you can pay some more.

    EA get more cash, you spend less. The only people who will lose out are those that buy NEW and sell 2nd hand, and GAME.

  • Vyggo #70 2 years ago

    Aah, so many commenters who still think the developers/publishers that are providing them with the means to enjoy their hobbies need to be some kind of charity workers..

    Second hand sales for games just isn't the same as (more) physical products that deteriorate over time (like the ever popular 2nd hand car-example). Making the game costs millions, burning the dvd costs a few cents. This method is a great way to make sure that the money goes to the one that actually made the game, not the one who is pushing the dvd's from one customer to another. With downloadable games and DLC going so well, I can't understand why some people seem to think that owning a DVD actually means anything.

    We are going to a model where you are not buying the game but the right for YOU to play it. I wouldn't be surprised if (like someone said before in this thread) in the future you actually pay very little for the dvd -which makes you play a extended trial-, and pay the majority for the unlocking of the actual content. It really makes sense if you are talking about software, I don't understand why people are so against this whole concept.

    If you are not against the concept itself, but against publishers making you pay for content that is not worth it I say (annoyingly): DUH! That's true for every product you buy. If you don't like what you get for your money, don't buy it, or return it.

  • Wyrm #71 2 years ago

    The experience starts with the disc? Sounds like making money for old rope to me.

  • afghan_jones #72 2 years ago

    I buy all my games new but if a game doesnt grab me or warrant a replay I trade it in to cover the cost of my next new game.

    This safety net means I will take a chance on less mainstream titles and new IPs as I know I have this recourse if it doesnt work out. If the value of 2nd hand drops, Im going to be less likely to gamble on anything other than top flight titles, and my total number of new games bought will reduce.

    Taken to the extreme if all devs & pubs start doing this, I think new IPs and less mainstream titles will really suffer, as people wont want to take the chance on them if they have little resale value in the event of being naff.

    Thats not a good thing by any means.

    EA, if you need to make more money, stop twatting around with EA servers and EA account bollocks and use peer to peer like every other game does you pillocks.