Toll Booth

By Rob Fahey Published 15 May, 2010

EA's Project Ten Dollar was a good idea, but it has launched us down a slippery slope.

Published as part of our sister-site GamesIndustry.biz' widely-read weekly newsletter, the GamesIndustry.biz Editorial is a weekly dissection of one of the issues weighing on the minds of the people at the top of the games business. It appears on Eurogamer after it goes out to GI.biz newsletter subscribers.

The phrase "cautious welcome" might have been invented for EA's Project Ten Dollar initiative - a project aimed at discouraging the more egregious abuses of the second-hand market by bundling single-use codes for $10 worth of downloadable content with new games.

Unlike previous attacks on the pre-owned trade, Project Ten Dollar is a fairly tightly focused tool. It doesn't prevent anyone from selling their games, and is unlikely to seriously discourage consumers from selling directly to one another - or from buying from heavily discounted second-hand bargain bins, months or years after the original launch.

With the DLC in question for games like Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age being firmly in the "nice-to-have" rather than "must have" categories, the initiative actually gained some traction among gamers, who understood it to be a gentle but carefully calculated push not against their consumer rights, but against the business models of stores like GameStop and GAME, which often apply huge mark-ups to second-hand product and sell it very slightly cheaper than brand new games.

The negative responses came from predictable quarters, but were no less valid for that. Some people simply don't like DLC, especially DLC that appears at launch - they argue that it should be a part of the game, and that extra monetising at this stage in the lifecycle of the product is a pretty shabby way to treat consumers.

It's not a terribly fair viewpoint, ignoring as it does the most basic financial realities of game development (put simply, if there wasn't a way to pay for the development of those features, they'd never have been made at all), but it's widespread and it's understandable.

Others cautioned against the slippery slope which this initiative could lead us onto. Certainly, Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 handled Project Ten Dollar well - the latter more so than the former - delivering a good quantity of high-quality DLC, without actually detracting from the core game experience in any meaningful way if you didn't have the extra content. Rather than crippling the game, it simply relied on people's completionist instincts and their desire to see the full experience.

That's a delicate balance to strike, however, and many feared that the decision-making process at game publishers - which so rarely errs on the side of being genuinely consumer-friendly - was not conducive to the balance remaining in place. If Project Ten Dollar was successful, its critics warned, publishers would end up pushing it even further - stripping out crucial game systems and selling them back to pre-owned game consumers.

It's a slippery slope argument, scoffed the more optimistic commentators.

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the slippery slope, because earlier this week, EA revealed the next evolution of the thinking that kicked off with Project Ten Dollar. In future, the company revealed, the online multiplayer of EA Sports titles will be activated by a code - which will be bundled with new copies of the game, or sold for $10 to those buying the games second-hand.

EA's comments on the decision imply that this is simply the next logical step for Project Ten Dollar - an obvious and reasonable place to go with the initiative. That's either an incredibly disingenuous piece of PR, or a genuinely worrying insight into some of the thinking at a company which has, until now, looked like it was turning a corner in terms of its relationship with consumers.

In fact, the Online Pass represents a fundamental shift in the philosophy of EA's approach to the second-hand market. Project Ten Dollar created bonus content which was given to first-hand consumers for free, and available to second-hand market consumers for a fee. Online Pass, on the other hand, strips out existing, long-established game functionality and demands a fee from second-hand consumers to add it back into the game.

In short, Project Ten Dollar was designed to reward people for buying new games. Online Pass is designed to punish people for buying second-hand games. That's a subtle but extremely important difference in approach.

Online Pass also raises a number of awkward questions both for EA and for the console platform holders. For example, is it now reasonable to expect that EA Sports games will have significantly longer life-spans than previously? That seems reasonable - after all, there will now be an ongoing revenue stream from people paying for online access, and those people should be able to play the game for a decent amount of time before being told that the servers have shut down and they should buy a new version of the game.

Additionally, what's the status of Xbox Live Gold in this arrangement? EA Sports boss Peter Moore was in the hot seat at Microsoft when the company launched the Xbox Live Gold and Silver service tiers, so he knows perfectly well that Xbox 360 gamers already pay a monthly fee to Microsoft to play online. The understanding was always that games which charged an additional levy (such as MMORPGs) would be accessible to Silver members - you wouldn't have to pay twice.

So will EA Sports games, with their paid-for online service, now be available to Silver customers? Or are customers to reach into their pockets twice, once for Microsoft and once for EA, simply to play a game of football against a friend in another city?

Of course, this is a calculated decision on EA's part, and a cynical one at that. They know that the customers who buy FIFA and Madden every year aren't the same as the customers who bought Dragon Age or Bad Company 2. EA Sports' customers are less likely to read magazines, websites and forums which discuss Online Pass; the kind of consumer backlash which would have been witnessed had "core" games adopted this strategy is unlikely to gather steam within the wide-reaching sports game fraternity.

Unless the story gains traction in the mainstream press - which it almost certainly won't - then the first that most consumers will know about Online Pass is when they discover that the resale price of their copy of Madden is significantly lower than they expected.

By itself, that's hardly the end of the world - but there's no arguing against the slippery slope vision of this initiative now. If, as is exceedingly likely, Online Pass succeeds in its objectives - sustaining first-hand sales of EA Sports titles, discouraging the second-hand market and providing some revenue as recompense for second-hand sales - then it will become a much more widespread strategy, extending beyond EA Sports to other genres of game and other publishers.

This scenario bears echoes of the debate still ongoing around Ubisoft's controversial DRM measures. As we've learned more about the Ubisoft system, it's become clear that it definitely works - unlikely any previous system, it has the potential to protect PC games from piracy for weeks if not months after launch.

The cost, however, is high - restrictions on consumers and damage to the relationship between consumer and publisher are dangerous things at a time when the boxed-game market is already under unprecedented pressure from new forms of interactive entertainment.

The same calculation must be made for EA Sports' Online Pass. It will almost certainly work, achieving its business objectives admirably - but at what cost? The most elementary miscalculation made by even the biggest businesses is to underestimate the value of strong consumer relationships and goodwill in the face of a chance to increase short-term revenues.

EA has undoubtedly considered that balance, and may even have reached a sensible conclusion, given the nature of the EA Sports consumer base. However, this looks like becoming a more widespread model for publishers' engagement with consumers.

The risk is clear. Faced with new threats from unexpected quarters, should publishers really be hardening hearts against the industry, driving even more gamers away from the traditional business models which they are so desperate to prop up?

If you work in the games industry and want more views, and up-to-date news relevant to your business, read our sister website GamesIndustry.biz, where you can find this weekly editorial column as soon as it is posted.

Comments (85) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • afghan_jones #1 2 years ago

    EA can eat my poo.

  • curtlikesmeat #2 2 years ago

    First off, the Ubisoft DRM works? I was under the impression that at this point both Assassin's Creed II and Settlers 7 have been fully cracked. Whether it 'works' in the sense that it saved them money as they were only cracked some time after release is arguable (I bought AC2 only a few weeks ago from a supermarket bargain shelf and didn't bother with Settlers where I might have without the DRM).

    As for the rest, I can only speak personally but I just choose not to buy stuff that has the stench of greed floating around it on principle really. For every EA Fifa there'll always be a Konamni PES or some other option and I'll probably take my business elsewhere. If it got ridiculous I'd probably just stop playing games, that's not an 'internet threat' to EA or anything, it's just the truth, after a while you just become jaded with this sort of thing and think, you know what, fuck it - I'll go get some fresh air instead.

    You're right though, the mums who will be buying Fifa 11 in ASDA for their kids will have no idea any of this is happening.
    Edited by curtlikesmeat at 15/05/10 @ 10:13

  • Geordiemp #3 2 years ago

    Please tell me exactly how on-line pass would work and how it effects

    1. Multiple users of same console
    2. A user who has 2 consoles.

    If you have a pass, is the pass for the console that the game and code was entered, or does it only allow the user who installed the game ?

    Or does it activate a DLC ? In which case, can you have this DLC to 2 consoles.

    If the on-line activation works for all consoles I have my account on, and all users of that console, then that is not too BAD.

    If its one user only, or one console only, or even worse both, then wont not touch it witha barge pole.
    Edited by Geordiemp at 15/05/10 @ 10:10

  • GamesConnoisseur #4 2 years ago

    People WHO would normally buys games first hand, these are least affected by either project ten dollar or online pass.

    So to protest and boycott these games which doesn't come extra seems strange, also from past experiences, MW2, etc these boycotts doesn't work as too few of serious and aware gamers against the great unwashed masses.

    I note the concerns, and encourage people to communicate directly and heck asks Games Journalists/Sites to grill EA.

    As stated in article, extra developments costs needs to be funded for, so if not these means would we instead support the increases in RRP? I think not and also don't forget EA made a big losses though less the recent period compared to previous one.

    'No such thing as free lunch'

  • Rack #5 2 years ago

    Does it really surprise you that consumers bent over and took extra content handed to them on a platter? Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age had so much content that it goes beyond churlish and into the realms of insanity to complain that they were in any way light on content without the additional offerings, indeed they were among the densest games ever released.

    It's a position you could argue left consumers exposed, but realistically the effort to stand up when something not so unpleasant became forthcoming was minimal, the line of "extra free content to reward first time buyers" still fine and clear. No doubt EA will later seek to muddy it.

  • knightmt #6 2 years ago

    Does this mean that they are going to cut off support of all the games that have not implemented a play pass.

    EA is massive and owns a lot of great material, but I seriously doubt they are untouchable. Personally I buy quite a few games but there are so many great ones now that I can happily wait 6 months to a year to get a new version at a very low price. Do I buy DLC very rarely maybe one or two favourites. It is more likely as mentioned before by others to stop me buying a game as I try most games by rental before buying to see if they have any longevity.

    You can only lead by example, and if the customer looses, EA looses.

  • insincere_dave #7 2 years ago

    There's been the odd occasion when I've picked up an "out of season" EA Sports game for sub-£10 pre-owned. I shall likely discontinue this practice and do without EA Sports games completely now.

  • bad09 #8 2 years ago

    "Simple: I dont buy any game that has project $10 support."

    This. Gaming is now a battlefield where publishers instead of just selling us good games to play wage war on consumers constantly seeing how far they can push the bad treatment in order to maximize profit over quality of games and good consumer relations. More than ever these days I have to make a moral decision about supporting certain publishers/devs because of their treatment of us, and often games I WANT are left to rot.

    It's about time we all just left the bad publishers/devs to rot, problem is then they constantly change and you have to review the situation again. Some companies do listen to consumers in the end (I know I can actually happen!) or companies you are happy with change their policies. It's never ending.

  • mooseman721 #9 2 years ago

    Konami has had a system like this for years with PES. Without any option to buy back in. (I don't agree with it by the way, just that EA are not the creators of this monstrosity).
    Edited by mooseman721 at 15/05/10 @ 11:44

  • Machetazo #10 2 years ago

    EA are just hoping that the subtle switcheroo they pulled in policy, between rewarding buyers (paving the way) to punishing used won't be noticed. But, they also punish those who would want to part-ex towards a new game. So, the new one would either not get bought, or get bought much later.

    EA Sports' responsibility and to some degree interest, it appears, is to its investors not to the customers and industry that got it where it is today. Although, the Sports division is bound to be more open to commercial influences, so I guess the license deals/promotion etc, must have went to their heads at last.
    Edited by Machetazo at 15/05/10 @ 11:47

  • RobTheBuilder #11 2 years ago

    The only way we can stop this is to not buy Online restricted games, and to make as much fuss as possible about it so the thousands of FIFA and Madden buyer understand just how they are about to be ripped off.

  • Paulie_P #12 2 years ago

    I saw a copy of Battlefield: Bad Company 2 used for £34.99 in Game, when a new copy cost £39.99. I don't understand how Game are allowed to. get away with it. Someone who is not aware of the Project $10 will probably end up paying more for the game.

  • Kami #13 2 years ago

    The problem here is the consumer gets screwed every single way here. The retailers with second-hand mark-ups that shouldn't even be legal, Project Ten Dollar now giving access to online content if you buy second hand (which for a reasonably new game still falls into the "Better buy it new" thing). The loser, in the end, is the consumer - who gets shafted from every angle with varying degrees of force.

    I don't particularly see what EA is doing as inherently bad - I see their case and argument, and as long as online components are still more on the optional side, I'm not seeing the slippery slope just yet. If we visibly see them chopping up perfectly good games and charging us extra for them - then by all means, let us be outraged and burn the witches. EA, like other devs, are tackling this horrid business practice of Gamestop et al charging near enough the RRP for a second-hand title - and it is a horrid practice, and the retailers who participate will burn in a very special corner of hell I am sure.

    The reality is, as a PC user we've had CD-Keys being one-time use for years. You use a CD-Key, that's it, the game is yours end of. PC Games are, admittedly, often £5-£10 cheaper (though the price gap is narrowing, much to my annoyance!) but we only get the one key. We can't sell on PC games. And yet oddly, for some bizarre reason, we have no qualms about the PC market and how that is run - just on the DRM (which is a separate argument).

    Project $10 should be jeered only if it becomes abundantly clear that the games are being stripped out for the sole intention of making money from us. Free but optional DLC? Nice perk. Online modes? Nice, but hardly necessary. This is a fight, a war between Devs and Publishers against The Retailers, each side trying to outmanoeuvre the other, trying to make their prices or perks sound sweeter. We, the consumers, are the casualties, and we're going to suffer for a while sadly whilst this battle takes place.

    Older games won't be affected I am sure - but any future game after this fight will need to prove it's worth the cash, and if not... well... devs and publishers can go the way of the dodo, along with retailers who refuse to go along with the fact there's more than one way to skin a cat - or in this sense, buy rent and stream games.

    We must wait and see, because what happens will probably set the tone for the industry for many years... hmm... what was it Harry Hill says?

    Oh yeah.

    FIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGHHHHHHTTTTT!

  • Silvervein #14 2 years ago

    Author of this article, and some people forget that there are also other companies releasing games, other than EA, Ubi and the japaneese lot. Whether they burn and crash, or keep screwing over people, doesn't mean much for gaming as such. Look at 1c, for example. They got some of the best games in their categories in recent years. Space rangers 1/2, Faces of War and Men of War. And those are just the ones I play. I didn't hear of 1c trying to pull a fast one on its clients.

  • Doctor_What #15 2 years ago

    Good article Rob, thanks.

  • Eraysor #16 2 years ago

    Just another game I have to boycott, sadly. I didn't mind buying Dragon Age and ME2 because the $10 extras weren't that essential, but if they start adding other ludicrous restrictions I will be forced to stop buying EA games altogether.

  • Paulie_P #17 2 years ago

    With online achievements it can be argued that the online components of many of these games are not optional. Sure you may not be into achievements but it is an indicator of 'completing' a game. These online codes could prevent people from completing a game they own unless they're willing to cough up more money to play and this seems a bit unfair.

    Customers aren't asking for a free lunch, they've paid for the game and if they're on the 360 they've paid a subscription in order to be able to play games online.

  • Darth_Flibble #18 2 years ago

    The project ten dollar for mass effect 2 was very poor, zaheed add on was ok, but the rest was of the content felt cheap (the hammerhead missions were very boring to play). Gamers supported this game and EA and bioware knocked up some crappy DLC, its like looking through some old draw and giving some old biro as a "yearly bonus" Companies are seeing how far they can push gamers, soon it will be 3 hours of gameplay then a further £10 (regardless if you brought it new) for another 3 hours of gameplay).

  • VibratingDonkey #19 2 years ago

    Thanks for writing about it. Typically the press just ignores all the BS going on everywhere all the time. Like the RROD situation. Few did anything for their readers there. Guess there was the "Things break y'know." interview. That was pretty great. Poor Peter Moore. Now he's forced to defend and justify yet another shifty mess.

    It is possible to justify it though. EA's running their own server network. It's a service they provide that is separate from Xbox Live. It costs money to maintain. When you resell a game the result for EA on the server usage side is the same as if someone bought a new copy.

    But of course from the consumer's point of view all you see is you getting charged more and getting nothing in return. Or well, you get that, lowered second hand value, the ability to continue supporting these sort of practices in the future, possibly worse practices in the future...

    ..And it's worth adding at this point that something worse already has happened. EA charges $15 for a Bad Company 2 VIP pass, which renders half of the maps inaccessible. All of these maps appear to have been put on the disc, locked away and are then made available periodically, advertised as free map packs. So far 6/8 maps are available. What all this amounts to is you paying for a worse, lesser product. While EA gets to reap the marketing benefits, artificially elongate interest in the game, keeping people from selling the game, keeping it in the headlines, increasing sales, and gets an additional revenue stream. It is absolute bullshit.

    I made a thread about this on another forum and the general indifference was very scary and probably and unfortunately indicative of the future we can expect. Medal of Honor I'm sure will employ a similar practice. I will not buy that game if it does. I will not buy any game that does. This is the point where I just draw the line.

    I would very much appreciate it if the enthusiast press would ask questions regarding this type of thing and not fucking back down until you get an answer. Because with Bad Company 2 I did not know I was getting screwed over until the second "free" map pack, one month after release, was automatically available in the menu.
    Edited by VibratingDonkey at 15/05/10 @ 13:58

  • spiritsnake #20 2 years ago

    what is the industry coming to?

  • Eyhren #21 2 years ago

    @PatAU: Shivering Isles for Oblivion and EFLC for GTAIV were both supposed to be brilliant, although both were available on disks too so your point is still perfectly valid. The only other game where I've been perfectly happy to buy DLC is Rock Band 2. That is the only situation I can think of where you absolutely definitely can't deny that the dev isn't just milking you for content cut from the disk and it's very clear that Harmonix have been extremely dedicated to supporting their game.

  • TheRealBadabing #22 2 years ago

    Anyone trying to defend the online pass by saying EA runs their own servers should remember that they refused to use Live until they were allowed to do so. Lots of people were wary of the reasons for such a deal, but now our worst suspicions have been confirmed.

    I don't have a huge problem with the business model though if handled right. Physical discs can be extended demos, costing £10 for a bare-bones experience. Add MP for £10 and addition SP content for £20. It's the old razor/blade system and could work really well for the industry. Probably won't see it until another crash forces their hand though.

  • DaDon123456 #23 2 years ago

    Nicely written article. Thing that pisses me off the most is when I buy a game, that game is now MINE. What if I dont like it? I should be able to sell it to a second person without this project 10 dollar crap.

    Luckily for me, I couldnt care less about the games they are implementing this on..... so far.

  • coomber #24 2 years ago

    Sorry, but I have never seen so much shite written about any topic as this.

    EA spend a lot of money producing games and want to make sure they get that money back. If people don't want to pay full price for the game, they don't deserve to be treated as a good customer by EA - because they haven't acted like one.

  • metalangel #25 2 years ago

    I've bought three Project Ten Dorrah games (Dragon Age, Saboteur, Bad Company 2) and there is no way all three's bonus content put together would be worth ten bucks, never mind individually. Bad Company 2's is the most insulting, as it's just maps already on the disc having their spawn points and such moved around, and being remotely unlocked on the "release date". A lot of corporate apologists on here keep saying "they'd trying to run a business, they're not a charity, etc". This forgets that without customers, a business does not exist. And they no longer have me as a customer, because of their new policy. Crash and burn EA, I won't care.
    Edited by metalangel at 15/05/10 @ 15:14

  • linea #26 2 years ago

    so ten dollar: sucky sucky then

  • riz23 #27 2 years ago

    What if this initiative results in second hand games being cheaper (ten dollars at least cheaper) in your local games store? EA is not targeting the customer directly they are going for the retailer making a huge profit on 2nd hand stuff. If the price of 2nd hand games drops by the cost of the customer paying for an online pass or whatever, then the situation for the end user is no different. It's just that EA gets a cut of that 2nd hand money.
    As someone who buys mainly new, this really does not affect me in any way.

  • Kaminari #28 2 years ago

    I can understand the drive behind Project 10$. Additional content costs money, and that additional content wasn't part of the original product.

    The Online Pass, however, is plain and simple thievery. The online functionalities were already part of the product that EA sold to the consumer the first time around. Whatever happens to the product once it enters its second-hand lifetime is NOT EA's business anymore. Crippling the second-hand product and parts of its built-in functionalities is borderline illegal.

    Food for thought -- and maybe legal counteraction.

  • rock27gr #29 2 years ago

    If you are a first buyer, this doesn't hurt you.

    If you aren't, you are not their customer anyway.

  • Vyggo #30 2 years ago

    Whether you like it or not, get used to paying for the right to PLAY a game, instead of OWNING it. It is going this way for most of the software industry, and it makes sense as well. Strange they don't even touch this in the article.

    It's not possible to resell most downloadable games anyway, so why would it be different for a $1 dvd/blue ray. It's not the physical product that constitutes (the vast majority) of the costs, it's developing the game itself. Second hand trading just doesn't work in that context.

  • I\'mListening #31 2 years ago

    I would be interested to see what action, if any, Microsoft will take in relation to this. That said, the console companies don't really seem to have many standards with regards to DLC and how it should be implemented. DLC has largely been a joke so far. When I first heard of DLC I was expecting more along the lines of Shivering Isles and Episodes in Liberty City - somethig more akin to an expansion - but...well, there it is. Disappointing.

  • Sodarules #32 2 years ago

    A lot of people have said they will stop buying EA Games because of this but if you buy the game new then this doesn't affect you, and if you buy it preowned then EA don't care if you don't buy it - it isn't them losing a customer.

    I don't like this because I buy a lot of my games preowned, but the fact of the matter is that it costs EA to run the servers. Why should EA provide servers for people that have paid absolutely nothing towards them? (I'm not saying I necessarily subscribe to this view, although I can see their point. Merely playing Devil's advocate.)

  • Odessa #33 2 years ago

    I do not see a problem in that. I buy the games always first hand as (at least here in germany) the 2nd hand prices are higher then in the uk when i buy them new.

    U get a game which is half a year old for around 20 pounds in uk. In germany u pay 40€. For used still 30-35€ on ebay (germans are not really smart on ebay ;) ). Also in gamestop stores you pay more for used games then in the uk.

    So even on amazon with 6 pounds for sending its cheaper then used in germany :(.

    And another example: when a game comes out in uk you pay normaly 30-35 pounds. In germany the cheapest is 55€ which is only for some games and only since a few month. Normaly they are at 69€!!! And on top of this: most games are cut or changed to meat the USK (german pegi rating).

  • metalangel #34 2 years ago

    @Sodarules: It is them losing a customer. Those three games I bought were all new. They've lost me because:
    a) I won't be buying their games new any more because I don't want to support a company that behaves like this, and
    b) if I did want an EA game, I'd buy it preowned (so they don't get a penny) and wouldn't buy the Project Ten Dollar DLC because I know from my past experiences that it's a complete ripoff.

    @Vyggo: I've bought some PC games via download. But only ones where I get a nice executable file that I can burn onto a CD (essentially giving me a physical copy) and that don't require constant online verification or other hoops to jump through. The current restrictions on consoles are ridiculous (I bought a 360 memory card that has Worms on it, I HAVE TO have the memory card in to play Worms as I'm not allowed to move it onto my HDD... wtf?)

  • secombe #35 2 years ago

    The key thing here is that the trade-in cycle is quite important to the EA Sports yearly updates. When FIFA 10 came out, GAME etc were overrun with copies of FIFA 09.

    The cost of "upgrading" each year is going to get higher as the second-hand value of the outgoing title inevitably drops significantly. Unless they move to a every other year policy of releasing titles there are going to be a lot of unhappy gamers.

    Several people above have said 'I always buy new so it won't affect me', but that's not strictly true unless you never sell your games either. The price you can shift older titles at will drop, and this is particuarly apt for the EA Sports titles where many people move onto the new version every year.
    Edited by secombe at 15/05/10 @ 17:47

  • Sodarules #36 2 years ago

    @metalangel If you genuinely don't buy another new EA game new after this then I respect you for that. Sticking up for what you believe in is important. However, many people that say they won't buy another EA actually will when they realise that they really want to play it. To be clear, I'm not saying YOU will buy one anyway, but I'm sure you'll agree that many people won't have the same conviction..

    Because of this I think that the money they make extra will compensate for customers like you. Also, I think that EA are certainly not the last of the companies that will do this. In a few years I imagine that this sort of thing will be commonplace. For example, if this works - perhaps even if it doesn't - do you think there is any chance that Activision won't jump straight on the bandwagon with the next Call of Duty? I fear that the people that say they won't buy a $10 project game are the same that said they would buy a game will an RRP of £55. How'd Modern Warfare 2 sell?

  • Caspar_Esq. #37 2 years ago

    How the fuck was it "a good idea" you fucking idiots??

  • metalangel #38 2 years ago

    @Sodarules: I accept that I might be cutting my nose off to spite my face a bit here... however, I think that a lot of people accept bad business practices and poor customer services too willingly. I'm not saying we should be a bunch of nitpickers (most of my working career has been in customer service and some people are worryingly petty) but we should be prepared to take a stand when necessary. Certainly there's plenty of businesses in all sectors who I won't deal with any more for any number of reasons.

    I realize my lost custom is probably just an above average-sized drop (I do quite a few games) in the ocean, but as Marge Simpson proved, one screwball can make a difference. After all, we're all being encouraged to recycle because each individual action adds up to something much more, right? And that's what I think they need to realize here, that they can only push their customers so far before they'll notice a negative effect. The saying goes that a reputation built over 100 years can be destroyed in a few minutes. It's a real shame that EA had turned themselves around so well in the last few years and have now had a massive resurgence of corporate evil far worse than anything that's come before.

    Anyway, thanks for showing at least one person on here actually understands and isn't just going to trot out the same old defensive responses (as if EA will somehow be 'grateful' to them!).

  • Gastrian #39 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012

  • ShinMegami08 #40 2 years ago

    It's a very difficult situation:

    On the one side it seems like a ripoff of the consumer.

    On the other side we have to understand that the times have changed: Through the online component, the expenses for a company have risen a lot. Before online play a company published a game and...that was it! They could move over the developer team to a new project (sequel whatever).
    They didn't have to pay for the infrastructure, the technical personal, the developer teams,...which an online game needs nowadays.
    When I look at a game like MW2 or BF:BC2 the costs must be huge! Just logical that a company tries to outsource the costs on the consumer.

    And when I look at how much time I spent playing a SP game like Uncharted2 (didn't like MP) and how much time I play BF, it seems o.k. for me to support the online thing, which gives me in the end much more value for my money.

    /hides himself

  • secombe #41 2 years ago

    @Gastrian

    Actually, car warranties are fully 'transferrable', in as much as they stay with the car, not the owner (same goes for the MOT, the 3 years grace is law - nothing to do with the manufacturer), you don't even need 'proof of purchase'. My other half bought a 33 month old car that then had a complete engine failure - they replaced the entire engine and she got it back within a few weeks of the original warranty expiring. Same goes for any product as long as you have the original receipt (obviously in the case of a microwave - life will be easier if the original purchaser bought with cash.)
    Edited by secombe at 15/05/10 @ 23:07

  • Grogmonkey #42 2 years ago

    A genuine question that I would like to see an answer to (primarily from those unhappy at the Online Pass):

    If not through second-hand-sales curbing initiatives such as Project $10, from where are publishers, and by extension developers, supposed to get their money? And I'm not talking about them making obscene profits. I mean the money to cover the development (and/or ongoing operating) costs of the game.

    All answers appreciated. They don't even have to be on the back of a postcard.

  • metalangel #43 2 years ago

    @Gastrian: Your frothing ignorance is so astonishing (especially regarding the well-worn and well-discredited car analogy, you know NOTHING of car ownership in the UK) that I'll make the point one more time just for you:

    What is a secondhand buyer entitled to from EA?

    Well, consider this:

    Buyer A buys FIFA 11 and plays it for 12 months online. They don't have to pay anything extra.

    Buyer B buys FIFA 11 and plays it for 6 months online. They then trade it in, Buyer C buys this pre-owned and plays for a further six months online.

    Both copies have been used for 12 months of online play. Why should Buyer C get charged more if Buyer A hasn't? Buyer B no longer has the game and cannot use EA's bandwidth up. The ONLY ANSWER is that Buyer C is charged more because EA can. It is nothing beyond greed. Any supposed cost for running multiplayer servers was obviously accounted for in the original purchase price of the game when new if new purchasers can play the game indefinitely online.*

    *and we know how long EA servers actually stay online, right kids? We're not halfway through 2010 and already Madden 09's servers have been shut down.

  • winstoninabox #44 2 years ago

    EA may certainly implement any business model it likes. And I feel sorry for them that the practices of some 2nd-hand stores seem to be shafting them. But apologists for this business model are being way to hasty. There are a couple of really big unanswered questions which need answers before anyone can say if this is fair for the consumer.

    1. How many machines and/or accounts will have access to on-line features from the new disk or the Online Pass? On the face of it, it sounds like consumers with multiple machines and/or accounts are about to feel the pain.

    2. How long will servers be active for these games? On the face of it, it sounds like a consumer who buys on Online Pass for a game 18 months after the games' release is about to have a very limited window to actually use that pass.

    And then there are the negatives for the consumer.

    1. The Online Pass will automatically decrease the resale value of your games.

    2. Games with an Online Pass will be less desired by 2nd-hand buyers, leading to either a further decrease in their resale value or the 2nd-hand stores being unwilling to buy the games because they are difficult to move from the store's shelves.

    Both ways, the consumer loses.

    Then there is the minefield of consumer rights for both the 1st- and 2nd-hand buyer. Publishers and 2nd-hand stores will have to be very careful to fully disclose exactly what the consumer is and ISN'T getting when they purchase the game.

    And finally it costs EA no more to run their servers no matter how many people with 2nd-hand games are accessing them. The cost of the life of the server should have been factored in based on the first time buyers. So if that buyer sells the game then the 2nd-hand user is just taking their place. So if 1 million people buy the game new, and then 1 million people sell it, and 1 million people buy it 2nd-hand, there is still only 1 million people on the server. A server that was paid for by the first million.

    Without anymore information on exactly how this is going to work, it looks like EA have gone with all stick and no carrot.

  • Kami #45 2 years ago

    @winston;

    "1. The Online Pass will automatically decrease the resale value of your games."

    Welcome to what PC gamers have had to deal with, and accepted, for quite some time now. Of course, it's not going to totally destroy the value of your games - just knock a tenner off.

    2. Games with an Online Pass will be less desired by 2nd-hand buyers, leading to either a further decrease in their resale value or the 2nd-hand stores being unwilling to buy the games because they are difficult to move from the store's shelves.

    Possibly, but it's that or let retailers continue to shaft us up the hiney the way they do. Of course, legit traders and swappers will suffer - and I really cannot express how angry that makes me, but it's become abundantly clear to consumers and developers that many of these retail units operate with very few scruples as to pricing these days - if they even admit a copy is second hand at all. At a stroke, various titles will be impossible for them to trade "as new" - forcing second hand prices down, at least a tenner if not we'd hope more.

    I am angry that such measures are considered necessary. But I am angry retailers have got us to this point and by token, that consumers have marched us to the doom of what was a perfectly good service by bending over and asking to take it up the rump. It's a horrid, horrid situation where whatever happens, the consumer loses out - so, do we support the unscrupulous retailers or the unscrupulous publishers? I understand that's like asking if you'd like your scrotum chopped off with a chainsaw or blasted off with a shotgun, but it's the choice we've got.

    That said however, I am a big believer that we are going to very soon be moving on from physical media - I personally download more and more games via Steam, I rent them from LoveFilm and if I buy physical copies of games, I shop around on the internet and find a decent deal. More and more I, as a gamer, am moving away from the realms of trundling to a store and buying a game over the counter - do I worry that I don't own the games I rent? Nope. Do I worry I can't sell the games I buy on Steam? No way. And when I buy a game for my consoles, do I worry about not liking it? Not really, because if I'm ever in any doubt, I'll rent it - if I can't, I can wait for it to be available.

    I have been a pretty big spender when it comes to games, and still am to a lesser degree - I am just smarter, wiser and more knowledgeable about how, where and when to get them. Retailers are almost totally out of the picture - not that I haven't been known to look for some rare gems in their piles of second-hand stock, because I have (a few years ago I found Project Zero, which introduced me to the series and therefore, it's sequel Crimson Butterfly - best horror game ever made and I can't thank Game enough for that!). But with the advent of more sophisticated stock cataloguing and the ability to check values on the internet, finding bargains in amongst the shit is an ever-increasing waste of time and energy - the retailers have smartened up. The losers - the consumers.

    We are screwed whichever way this goes, but I'm of the opinion that with so many ways to play games now, the main target and victim of Project $10 is essentially the retailers. Yes, we consumers may end up an unwelcome victim as well - but with such a war being fought, why stand around on the battlefield when there's so many different trenches you can go through to find what you're looking for?

    As I said previously - the time for us to complain will be when they start visibly chopping up games and selling them to us for the same price... oh fuck it, we already have episodic gaming and few complain about it these days...

    P$10 isn't nice. But what retailers do isn't nice either. We should be asking ourselves if the second hand market, in its current form, is worth saving, worth fighting for. P$10 and future schemes may indeed be the bullet between the eyes, but equally with what it has become, maybe euthanasia isn't such a sad thing...

  • Gastrian #46 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012

  • Sodarules #47 2 years ago

    To be honest, as much as many of us are justifing EA's actions as a result of server costs (still a valid point, in my opinion) I think that it isn't the consumer that are being targeted here, they are just collateral damage. I think EA are going for the second hand sellers themselves - and not all of them at that, but the big boys.

    They will have no doubt noticed the ridiculous mark up by the likes of GameStop in the US and Game in the UK, but they will also have seen the likes of Walmart, Best Buy and HMV dipping their toes in the pre-owned market waters, and they don't like the apparant proliferation that is taking place.

    I'm probably wrong but I wouldn't be surprised if in the future they come to some agreement with the big stores where the stores buy a scratch-off card from EA (like xbox live points cards) to include in the boxes of preowned games. All EA are after is a cut.

    However, I do fear for the smaller stores and individuals that will once again get screwed. And that really is a shame.

  • Breach #48 2 years ago

    Similar to website advertising.
    I don't mind it most of the time, but when i am unable to click on the 'comments' link, because i rolled over an advert from 'Play' that completely obscured a big chunk of my screen, the advert does not seem to want to go, even when i click around it.
    Well when advertising becomes this intrusive, that is when i will decide 'enough is enough' and will head off in search of a browser extension to Stop All Adverts.
    Its called taking the piss, and if EA get too greedy they will not know about it until it is too late.

    You listening, EG ?
    Edited by Breach at 16/05/10 @ 10:02

  • metalangel #49 2 years ago

    @Gastrian, I never went around making claims of British Trading Standards laws or quickly rushing to Google to patch up my originally flawed and incorrect argument when people called me out on it. ;)

    But anyway: How does EA know that Buyer C isn't the original purchaser when that copy of the game connects to their server? They don't, not until now at least. And how are they 'greedy'? By buying the game second hand, the game isn't in new condition, hence the lower price they've paid. The factory seal is broken, the disc isn't in perfect condition, the manual might be a bit tatty (or it might not, such is the risk you take buying secondhand goods). Making a significant part of your product deliberately fail if anyone but the original purchaser attempts to use it is the greed here.

  • Jonny5Alive7 #50 2 years ago

    I don't think its as big a deal as people make out. Most people will buy the game and be able to play online for free, all they need to do is put a code in. If you buy a game second hand your getting it on the cheap anyway so an extra tenner to play online doesn't sound unreasonable if I'm honest. It also prevents piracy, or at least makes the pirates pay £10 for something they would otherwise have got for free.

  • Darth_Flibble #51 2 years ago

    @cheeky_Grizzly: they take the codes out now

    What EA could do, is instead of having disc release each year of their sports games. Have a downloadable update for say £10 or £12. I'm sure they could but wanting £40 each year gets in the way

    Or you sell your old fifa game to EA for the next Fifa etc. This way EA gets money for 2nd titles. Better than game getting the money. But they want £40 downloadable only games with no chance of resale

  • bad09 #52 2 years ago

    That people are defending this just shows me exactly how we've got to a games industry that milks our wallets the way it does now. Consumers are idiots......

  • Sodarules #53 2 years ago

    @bad09 Maybe consumers are idiots. But maybe some people think that companies are in this industry to make money and so aren't surprised when one of them tries to continue to do so. Especially in an economy that has resulted in many more people buying second hand which in turn results in lower sales. The price of development hasn't gone down. And at a time when there are many complaints about a lack of new IP's I'm not sure that begruging the companies making money off their cash cows (which can then be put back into development) is the best solution.

    Having an opinion is fine - I can certainly see both sides of this one - but don't insult those that disagree with you. It makes you look silly.

  • HermitArcader #54 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • bad09 #55 2 years ago

    @Sodarules

    I all I know is the games industry is not a patch on what it was and people keep sucking up every crappy tactic to raise money.

    Yes the price of development hasn't gone down but last time I checked the market is absolutely HUGE now. Gaming is everywhere these days! You really telling me this huge potential market is not offsetting costs?

    Of course they do it to make money and 2nd is eating profit buy why? Because gaming is reached the limit of it's cost for many (please no 80's comparisons people, TODAY £40+ per game is too much for such a saturated market), I see it so much in stores around my way...

    Customer: "you have game X?"
    Store: "yes"
    Customer: "How much?"
    Store: "£40" (or even higher on certain games)
    Customer: "Oh, do you have a 2nd hand copy?"

    Or

    Customer: "you have game X?"
    Store: "yes"
    Customer: "How much?"
    Store: "£40" (or even higher on certain games)
    Customer: "OK I'll be back to trade"

    It's all good saying 2nd hand hurts and stepping on people to stop it, but the main reason for it is NEVER addressed, in fact the opposite happens and price goes up...therefore increasing 2nd hand market (and piracy I might add). Also why not go directly for the stores who made this problem by expanding and expanding their 2nd hand market? Why is it us, as usual, who gets it?

    All I ever see is ways to get THEIR problem sorted with never thinking on the problem that pushes people to this.

    Oh and when I say consumers are idiots, we are ALL consumers so I include myself in that statement (I've bought in to ther odd kick in the consumers teeth to) in there I may comment but I'm not judging. My point was we ALL need to think a bit smarter as we were idiotic to let it get to the point companies are starting to charge for MP twice.

  • el_pollo_diablo #56 2 years ago

    As this article says, we all know that people are still going to go out and buy FIFA 2011 and validate EAs thinking.

    So what if the reviewers of games make the appropriate adjustments when they dish out scores for games? Like say, 2/10. As a punishment. To hit them in the only place it hurts them, metascore. Unfair? Sure. But fuck em. They have no right* to do this. A computer game is no different to anything else. And when you buy anything else second hand you get the whole thing.

    2/10.

    * moral rather than legal.
    Edited by el_pollo_diablo at 16/05/10 @ 18:29

  • Sodarules #57 2 years ago

    @bad09 I agree about the cost of gaming entirely and I do sympathise with those that can't afford to buy X number of games a month. Hell, I am one of those people.

    I also think the game industry has alot of issues that need addressing. For example, unlike CD's there isn't really a mechanism to buy old games. If you want to buy an old George Harrison CD new then you can - it'll be everywhere. Try and buy a new copy of Shadow of Collossus (don't think that is spelt right) and you haven't got much of a chance. So what happens if you want to buy a game a couple of years down the line? While single player games aren't a problem at the moment, who knows what the future holds? How close are we to CD keys?

    There seems to be a lot of issues surrounding this that haven't been thought through. But the gaming industry is still young and is still finding it's feet. Teething problems are to be expected, I suppose.

  • HermitArcader #58 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • secombe #59 2 years ago

    @Gastrian.

    I said "Actually, car warranties are fully 'transferrable', in as much as they stay with the car, not the owner", yet you seem to be disputing that for some reason, the dealer doesn't come into it. I'm not aware of any manufacturer that won't transfer the warranty to the new owner and I'm also not aware of any case where this has ever been disputed (unless the previous owner has voided it in some way, i.e. not using approved parts). I've just spoken to a dealer and he's not aware of any manufacturer that does not transfer the warranty, most do by default without even needing to contact them.

    And that's kind of the point I was making relating to project 10 dollar really. Whilst you may not legally be entitled to the exact same product as the original, consumers expect the same product (except wear and tear, obviously), the car industry could be complete arses about it and only apply the warranty to the first owner, but they don't.
    Edited by secombe at 16/05/10 @ 11:34

  • sillak #60 2 years ago

    I don't get people's aversion to this new approach (Note: I'm a roughly 50/50 consumer of new/used games).

    Who are the real benefactors of the 2nd hand games market. Yes, to a limited extent it's the consumers, but more so it's the games retailers (as the thieving swine charge so much for 2nd hand games anyway, and pay us so little when we trade them in), while the developers/publishers see zero benefit. Why are we interested in giving the retailers our money? They're going to pay profits to their investors/owners, after all, not reinvest those funds into game development. We're paying the middle-men, and they're laughing all the way to the bank.

    The system as it exists now is inherently parasitic, with the retailers and consumers (short-sightedly) colluding to strangle the revenue stream of the developers. I'm all for healthy competition and efficient pricing, but I can't help but feel that we're currently placing too much stress on the producer industry. Kudos to the boffins at EA for coming up with a relatively painless way to rectify what I personally perceive to be a market failure.

  • duckncover #61 2 years ago

    You know, a few things occur to me. Every online game must have an average cost of bandwidth per game sold. The second hand market with many copies of games being recycled must have increased this cost per copy. So maybe it was between two choices, increase the cost of the brand new copy to cover the cost of supporting the second hand purchaser, or charge them separately for the online service.

    Actually the reality is that anyone buying a game new at the moment, is already supporting and subsidising the second hand buyer. As a first time buyer, I'm not sure how I feel about that.

  • TheRealBadabing #62 2 years ago

    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."
    Online and pre-owned stuff aside, this statement is key. What they are saying is that they want to charge full RRP for the equivalent of a sampler.

  • Ryze #63 2 years ago

    I can't say I have any problem with it, personally.

    I think it will harm them - as there are so many people who DON'T care about online, who will just get the preowned copy of FIFA, Tiger etc. at launch to take advantage of an extra £/$/€10 discount.

    for those who pay the money, they're contributing to the online service, which is better than just paying the retailer for the game.

    I don't see where the customer really gets ripped off here.

  • DocktorJ #64 2 years ago

    Who cares about online functionality on 2nd hand EA Sports games? They are worthless once they're a year old; Selling for a couple of quid each, they're no longer up-to-date and surely no-one's playing the old versions online anyway?

  • Captain_Jono #65 2 years ago

    Another concern you didn't mention is what this will mean to online retailers like Amazon and Ebay. Under British consumer law, people have a right to return products purchased online, within seven working days, and recieve a full refund. The Online Pass would make it possible to return an unplayable game.

    Either online retailers will start refusing to accept returns, increasing the probability they'll get taken to court, or the retailers will take EA to court for losses incurred through the Online pass.

    This situation has the potential to get bloody!

  • Feanor #66 2 years ago

    Buy the fucking games new and quit whining.

    "They have no right to do this. A computer game is no different to anything else. And when you buy anything else second hand you get the whole thing.'

    Yes, they do. PC gamers haven't been able to buy second hand computer games and get the whole thing for years.
    Edited by Feanor at 16/05/10 @ 16:06

  • zubnut #67 2 years ago

    This whole thing is only going to end up pissing off the 2nd hand buyers and those who trade in.

    If ea think it makes sense to upset your own audience rather than try to take on the retailers who are in my opinion abusing the 2nd hand market (with their ridiculous profiteering on trade in values and pricing) then they are idiots of the highest order.

    A shitstorm of bad publicity is coming for EA on this one.

    I don't think it will be too long before publishers insist on an online activation one time code linked to online accounts for all their games, and this will just make life a bit more awkward for everyone.

    I dont feel the need for buying a game 2nd hand to save an odd £5 here or there anyway. £5 seems to be worth fuckall nowadays and I much prefer to have a game shiny and unmolested before I use it, but it's horses for courses isn't it.

  • Emmit_Assassin #68 2 years ago

    This is one more nail in the coffin for great games. Do the dicks at EA not realise that the games industry is the gold mine it is because for years we've been sold awesome games that haven't tried to rip us off at every given opportunity? We've always (well, most of the time, anyway) had value for money. Now the money men are in, and its all hands to the pumps to drive the industry into the ground with greed. I thought EA had changed its image recently.

    Why, Oh why did I let them in?

    No more brand new EA games for me. I don't buy EA Sports games as a rule, and this has convinced me I've been right not to and will continue not to.

    I hope you're reading these comments guys at EA. Fuck you.

  • AOFanboi #69 2 years ago

    I cannot understand the people feeling a need to defend a corporation like EA as if it was a starving African child or something. NOBODY OWES YOU A SUCCESS IN BUSINESS. EA entered the console market well knowing of second-hand trades since they had been a staple of the industry since the Atari VCS/2400 days. And it's not like EA keeps those precious servers up longer than they need to: Come the next yearly incarnation, servers for the old ones start to shut down. Planned obsolescence.

    The main difference is that these days the retail chains (Game and GameStop in particular) have taken over that trade and try to make people trade second-hand through them where they collect a bigger profit than in the case of new game sales. The sellers and buyers both lose out compared to selling through e.g. eBay, but the retailers offer a convenience that apparently is considered worth it to them: The seller gets money immediately, and the buyer gets the game immediately. Value added, the entire core of the services industries.

    Now, what would happen if this second-hand money-machine disappeared from retailers? The retailers would have less money to spend on inventory, thus they would have to focus on titles that they can move quickly. No more would there be shelf space for quirky games like Ico or Psychonauts. The retail stores would be even more dominated by sports, FPSes and movie tie-ins. Games that were not formulaic could only be sold online.

    (Or they would go bust and only the online retailes would be there. Then again, do you really need to touch a physical box in order to know what to buy these days?)

    Me? I buy my games "new-ish", meaning I wait for the retailers to drop the prices on new titles. I got Bayonetta for less than £20 from play.com, which is less than both new and used retail prices in general here. I waited for the Dragon Age price to drop by 40% in local stores, but before the "deadline" for the included DLC codes. In the end, both approaches were cheaper than buying used at GameStop or Game. Not to mention that the chain I generally buy games in do not have second-hand sales, but somehow still has lower prices that the two "majors".

  • PlugMonkey #70 2 years ago

    *sigh*

  • thefinn #71 2 years ago

    It seems to me that people are missing a group of consumers who will benefit from the Online Pass.

    People like me who don't particularly *want* to play online will, once the news catches on and used copies (presumably) drop in value, be able to get a game with all the features relevant to us at a cheaper price than we could today. Compared to Project Ten Dollar, this is actually a step up for me and people like me.

    Well, not me personally. I'm still boycotting Madden (the only EA Sports title I'd be interested in) over their monopoly on the NFL license. But I wonder how many of EA Sports' customers only (or mainly) play single-player or local multi-player.

  • strange_powers #72 2 years ago

    Unless second-hand retailers are prepared to co-operate with game manufacturers, kicking back a portion of the money they make in a goodwill gesture, then to be honest I don't see another option for companies like EA. The second-hand market is vibrant and useful to consumers, but it's got to hurt when games cost so much to develop and market.

    Barring other changes, I think I'm okay with it.

  • kangarootoo #73 2 years ago

    There is a lot of talk of "the customer getting ripped off" here, but if you buy your games second hand, you aren't a customer of the publisher or developer that made the game.

    Seriously, how on earth can people complain about the way EA is treating its customers, when the very subject at hand is entirely based on the fact that second hand buyers aren't EA's customers?


    To me, this all boils down to the same thing. Gamers want games as cheaply as possible, they don't care how that happens, and if anyone gets in the way of that they get annoyed.

  • StatelySeven #74 2 years ago

    Try the game, it is actually really good . if enough of my mates sign-up i can see this type of gaming experience as another extension to 'core' based games

  • kangarootoo #75 2 years ago

    @MattDamon

    "If they use the pass, then realistically, if they then want to sell on their game privately, it should now instantly be $10 less than the second hand price would have been before"

    But EA aren't responsible for the second hand sales value of their products. We are seriously suggesting that EA should be held responsible for maintaining a high sell-on price of their products? Name me a single other seller that would have that critisism levelled at them.

    When you buy your game, you know what you are getting and you know how its resale value may be affected. If you don't like the deal, don't buy the game. What has changed there?

    Again I say, I understand completely why people are annoyed, but there is no moral high ground here on the part of gamers. We want games as cheaply as possible, and we want to sell them on for as much as possible. Now that is all fine and dandy, but EA don't owe us anything in that regard.

    If people want to say "this is an arse because games will overall cost me more" then fair enough. But this thread is full of commentary suggesting EA are doing something mean or evil or dishonest. They have simply changed the package, and if we the customers don't like that new package, we have a choice.

  • Corben_Dallas #76 2 years ago

    So if you buy an new game with a unique code, it has no resale value cause the next person that picks it up has to 'rebuy' the game for $10, making the 2nd hand value of your game $0.

    Fuck the hell off EA.

    This makes punted seek out pirated copies for your games so u get nothing.

  • kangarootoo #77 2 years ago

    @MattDamon

    They aren't forcing down the value of the product for the first person that buys it, unless they choose to sell it on. I understand what you are saying, but I simply don't think EA have any responsibility whatsoever to the second hand market, and that includes making sure their products carry a good price on said second hand market.

    They aren't going out of their way to devalue the product, but they are going out of their way to devalue the second hand trade of their product. And they are doing it for very good reason (summary of Plugmonkey's comments from a previous thread: publishers are in direct competition with their primary sales channel - this is not the case with any other form of media - the fault for this lies with the sales channels, not the game publishers).


    As for whether are struggling,

    1. That is simply irrelevant, unless you want to turn this into a discussion of morals and charity. We gamers don't buy games out of the goodness out our hearts, we buy them to serve the self serving desire to play games. Morals and charity have nothing to do with anything.

    2. EA are struggling. They have a recent history of losses and layoffs. They might still be huge, and I'm not for a second suggesting you feel sorry for them, but lets at least have the correct information at hand.

  • kangarootoo #78 2 years ago

    "This makes punted seek out pirated copies for your games so u get nothing"

    No it doesn't. The average punter for an EA sports title buys their game new. And the average punter doesn't pirate console games, regardless of the deal on the shop floor.

  • kangarootoo #79 2 years ago

    @MattDamon

    "Bingo. Some people don't have the choice, gaming is still an expensive hobby. They sell on to fund next purchase, or they simply don't game."

    Well, at the risk of sounding callous, what business is that of EAs? Driving a speedboat is a pretty expensive hobby, but does that make it in any way the responsibility of speedboat manufacturers to increase affordability? Sellers make their products affordable only in the name of increasing profit, and I'm not sure why we have decided that gaming should be any different in that regard.

    Of course we all want games to be cheap, but EA don't owe that to anyone. We still seem to be hovering around this idea that EA should make their stuff cheaper, and reduce their profits, purely as a charitable act so that impoverished gamers can pursue a hobby they would otherwise not be able to afford. Surely you can see that is unrealistic.

    No other hobby works that way. In all other cases, if you can't afford a hobby you find another. This may seem unfeeling of me, but its kind of the truth, and I didn't make it that way so don't shoot the messenger.



    "Your approach of "if you don't like it, don't buy it" is very shortsighted"

    In a free market, I guarantee you it is only approach that works. Reduced sales matter far, far more to any publisher than an unverifiable number of people complaining on the internet.


    "I'm sure EA would far rather people piss and moan about it on here, as opposed to deciding just to keep their money in their pocket and strangle its revenue stream further."

    The assumption there is that this move WILL result in reduced profits because gamers will hang onto their money. I suggest that EA have done their homework and they KNOW (as much as anyone can know) this move will work in their favour. Really, how likely is it that a) we know more about this than EA, and b) EA use internet forums as their only source of data when predicting sales?

  • PlugMonkey #80 2 years ago

    "If EA were in serious financial trouble as a result of the second hand market, I may feel differently. They're not. "

    And yet they have laid off thousands of their staff in the last two years. Thousands. Hardly the behaviour of a company in the land of milk and honey.

    "They just see a chunk of money being made there that they cant' get their grubby hands on at the moment."

    They see the amount of money that they are making going down, and the amount of money retailers making from 2nd hand sales going up accordingly.

    As I've pointed out on these topics before, highstreet video game retailers are now aggressively pushing 2nd hand games over new ones. When was the last time you bought a new game at Game or GameStation or HMV at ANY time after the day of release without being asked if you wouldn't want a 2nd hand one instead for a few quid less?

    2nd hand video games have been around for as long as video games, and no publisher has ever given a shit about it until the last few years. That is in direct response to the retailers' new behaviour of trying to cut their sales off right at the source.
    Edited by PlugMonkey at 17/05/10 @ 17:31

  • kangarootoo #81 2 years ago

    @MattDamon

    Your last post was comprised of,

    Mild insult.
    Prolific use of the word SIMPLES.
    You stating again that you think this move will cause a loss of revenue for EA, without actually saying why.

    If you think what I wrote is plain wrong, it might be a good idea to say why you think that is in plain terms. Simply disagreeing with me, and suffixing your sentence with SIMPLES, suggests you are out of ideas.

    I've said before and I say again, I understand you want to pay less for your games, but that "want" is not a reason for EA to change their behaviour. You keep saying that there will be "consequences" and that customers will stop paying EA, but assumes that are right and EA are wrong.

    You can say "this will backfire on EA" in 5 different ways. I simply don't think your are correct about that. I perfectly understand the principles of business, and that EA don't want their revenue to fall. I just don't think this move will cause their revenue to fall, the opposite in fact.
    Edited by kangarootoo at 17/05/10 @ 17:53

  • cattypat #82 2 years ago

    Snake Oil sales has existed in gaming for years, with locked features and money-sucking services being crucified by the gaming press from the beginning.

    Its only now that publishers and developers have managed to persuade the gaming press into believing it to be genuine content being developed for your convenience instead of the money leaching device is obviously is. There is nothing wrong with changing the way we buy and play games, but chopping huge chunks of content out, then delaying it and slapping an additional price tag on it, is just completely wrong. Not to mention the other aspects such as required internet connection and big downloads eating up bandwidth.

    What you pay for is what you pay for, and what I pay for are games that are supported after release, are complete of most content in the box, and don't require me to feed the developers/publishers endless money from my credit/debit cards.

    Is that so much to ask? Its certainly going that way...maybe I will have to find a new hobby.

  • FuzzyDuck #83 2 years ago

    In my experience, most people trade in games to buy new releases; in fact i know a guy who empties his shelf come the annual FIFA update. I think the industry isn't really looking at the bigger picture with used games.

  • dnd #84 2 years ago

    bit late to the party - as far as owning games goes, how does it work on consoles? on pc, for as long as i can remember, you never 'own' the software (game/os/app), what you are buying is a license to use it that is non-transferable. or has this changed recently?

    having a browse through my xbox/ps3 library, it seems like they don't have the massive licenses that software of old did, but they do have a small legal bit that in particular mentions that rental/resale without express authorisation is forbidden. so is this a case making it more difficult to do something that was never 'legally' possible to begin with?

    to be honest, i don't particularly care, i never buy second-hand (unless said item is completely unavailable new) and i never sell, so at the moment this has no effect on me. if they decide to do something more heinous in future, then i'll worry about it then. ultimately, while i agree that complaints are useful, you know the saying, money walks, bs talks. if, whether as a new or second-hand buyer, you feel that you are paying more than you'd like (taking into account everything - cost reductions from potential on-selling, additional cost for second-hand MP license), don't buy it. it is ultimately supply and demand that drives these companies, customer complaints (except insofar as they affect future sales/revenue) really not that important.

    also bear in mind that EA is not 'profiteering' at the moment, i believe they are still making massive losses. though i doubt they'll change their practices just because they're back in the black, if and when that happens.
    Edited by dnd at 18/05/10 @ 08:37

  • kangarootoo #85 2 years ago

    @MattDamon

    "It's that nobody should say a bad thing about EA"

    I never said that, and I never will. I am simply deailing with the facts as I see them. Disliking a fact doesn't change it into something else, and admitting a fact isn't the same as liking it.


    "they are entitled to make as much money as they can in any way whatsoever, and if the customer doesn't like it, tough shit, they always have the option of not buying isn't it?"

    Yes, that bit is perfectly true. I didn't make it so, but its true. Whether its "clever" or not, its true. Whether people cry about it or not, its true.


    Fair enough about my earlier response, I didn't give enough detail and you called me out. The somewhat childish use of "SIMPLES" ticked me off a bit and I stopped really paying attention.

    I understand what you are saying about how this policy puts you off and will stop you buying EA games. I get all that. I just don't think you represent the majority. I do believe this will increase revenue for EA. I don't believe it will put off enough gamers to reduce their revenue, as you suggest. I understand you want to pay less for your games, and sell them on for more, but I don't believe EA has any responsibility to you in that regard, and I don't believe you can assign that responsiblity to them just because you want cheaper games. And like all free markets, if you don't like the deal you can not buy the games. Whether you think that attitude is clever or not, and whether you think your ability to buy or not buy games is fair, it is truly the only ability you have. Nothing else you do really matters to EA - if you keep buying their games, they don't care how much wingeing takes place on web forums. And conversely if you stop buying their games, they won't care how much praise is heaped on them.

    I think really the only core difference between our viewpoints is that you believe this recent move will make people stop buying their games in significant numbers, and I don't.