EA strikes back against Gamestop (USED must pay $20 dollars for new feature)
- Thread starter militantatheistaphob
- Start date
[quote name='Professor Oreo']The code that comes with the game is a consumable just like xbox live memberships, point cards, and any other single use code based items that we're all already forking over money for right now. [/quote]
I don't pay full price for live/pts either.
I don't pay full price for live/pts either.
007
CAGiversary!
... so, how is this any different from the 20 free songs that EA is doing with Rock Band 2 that no one seems to be complaining about? It's the same thing: buy it new, you get the code, you don't pay. Buy it used, you'll likely have to pay for them. It's an issue when it's an NBA game, but it's cool when Rock Band does the exact same thing?
It's a cheap tactic, but EA isn't supported by the used market, they're supported by you buying the game at retail. Period. It's business, and I can't really fault them for it. If you care about the feature, you'll pony up for a new copy, or you'll wait for a price drop. As previously mentioned, as well, neither of these things BREAK THE GAME. You buy it used, the game is still playable... so I don't see the issue. It's not as if they're going 'ok, if you don't have this code you can't use half of the teams in the NBA'. The game is still there, still playable, still complete.
All this is doing is hurting our ability to be a cheapass. I mean, in all fairness, there's going to be some people so turned off by this that they won't buy it... but there's also a ton who'll just pony up the money. It's about how much you care about the game.
It's a cheap tactic, but EA isn't supported by the used market, they're supported by you buying the game at retail. Period. It's business, and I can't really fault them for it. If you care about the feature, you'll pony up for a new copy, or you'll wait for a price drop. As previously mentioned, as well, neither of these things BREAK THE GAME. You buy it used, the game is still playable... so I don't see the issue. It's not as if they're going 'ok, if you don't have this code you can't use half of the teams in the NBA'. The game is still there, still playable, still complete.
All this is doing is hurting our ability to be a cheapass. I mean, in all fairness, there's going to be some people so turned off by this that they won't buy it... but there's also a ton who'll just pony up the money. It's about how much you care about the game.
Professor Oreo
CAGiversary!
[quote name='VipFREAK']I don't pay full price for live/pts either.[/quote]
That's great. I'm sure everyone here is very proud of you. I'd like to see you buy a 1600 point card use 400 points and try to sell the card to someone else. Once you activate the card online, the actual printed card itself becomes useless yes? Same with the EA code that comes with the game.
That's great. I'm sure everyone here is very proud of you. I'd like to see you buy a 1600 point card use 400 points and try to sell the card to someone else. Once you activate the card online, the actual printed card itself becomes useless yes? Same with the EA code that comes with the game.
blandstalker
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
[quote name='dafunkk12']
This is great for the industry, a strike against GameStop, and only hurtful to some. As stated in many prior discussions, only GameStop makes money on used game sales; the game publisher sees none of that. [/quote]
This is not great for the industry. Do you honestly think that confusing customers as to what they're actually buying is a smart move? Do you think that customers are going to be happy when they get their game home and find they have to spend another $5-$20 (or more?) so that it has all the advertised features, isn't somehow gimped, or is playable?
Yeah, that will go over great. EA might as well try to sell a USB credit card swiper or coin slot.
I'm just going to suggest here that the used market wouldn't be so attractive if the MSRP wasn't so high.
I think publishers live under the delusion that if the used market didn't exist, then everyone would pay $50 or $60 for their games. This isn't going to happen. They're just going to buy fewer games. Or none.
The videogame industry, for better or worse, has a model that they use now. It involves pricing games high to begin with, then tending to drop or clearance them later and, if all goes well, put them out as greatest hits. Maybe.
This model currently works because enough people participate in the engine. Some buy high and trade in quickly. A few will buy at whatever price. Some wait for sales or drops. Others wait for used.
It is a complicated, somewhat insane model. It's why we have a lot of games that bomb (which costs publishers money).
Injecting DRM into this and trying to extort charges from customers that may or may not be aware of extra fees, charges, or what-have-yous for something they can physically buy is not a sane solution. I sympathize because the economic model is screwy, but the solution is not adding more insanity.
[quote name='smoger']Anyone who sides with EA on this one is crazy. It's just the first step in a slippery slope. Today it's one feature that's locked out,.. tomorrow it'll be the whole game. I absolutely LOATHE Gamestop but it's not because of how they treat publishers.. it's because of how they treat consumers.
This is a war between giant corporations that is putting us, the consumers, the lifeblood of BOTH of these companies, in the firing line.
I just hope that console gamers are smart enough to take issue with this like PC gamers did with Spore.
(also, anyone who doubts the right of resale should google the First Sale Doctrine.. "a copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made")[/quote]
Sorry to quote so much, but this deserves to be seen again.
This is great for the industry, a strike against GameStop, and only hurtful to some. As stated in many prior discussions, only GameStop makes money on used game sales; the game publisher sees none of that. [/quote]
This is not great for the industry. Do you honestly think that confusing customers as to what they're actually buying is a smart move? Do you think that customers are going to be happy when they get their game home and find they have to spend another $5-$20 (or more?) so that it has all the advertised features, isn't somehow gimped, or is playable?
Yeah, that will go over great. EA might as well try to sell a USB credit card swiper or coin slot.
I'm just going to suggest here that the used market wouldn't be so attractive if the MSRP wasn't so high.
I think publishers live under the delusion that if the used market didn't exist, then everyone would pay $50 or $60 for their games. This isn't going to happen. They're just going to buy fewer games. Or none.
The videogame industry, for better or worse, has a model that they use now. It involves pricing games high to begin with, then tending to drop or clearance them later and, if all goes well, put them out as greatest hits. Maybe.
This model currently works because enough people participate in the engine. Some buy high and trade in quickly. A few will buy at whatever price. Some wait for sales or drops. Others wait for used.
It is a complicated, somewhat insane model. It's why we have a lot of games that bomb (which costs publishers money).
Injecting DRM into this and trying to extort charges from customers that may or may not be aware of extra fees, charges, or what-have-yous for something they can physically buy is not a sane solution. I sympathize because the economic model is screwy, but the solution is not adding more insanity.
[quote name='smoger']Anyone who sides with EA on this one is crazy. It's just the first step in a slippery slope. Today it's one feature that's locked out,.. tomorrow it'll be the whole game. I absolutely LOATHE Gamestop but it's not because of how they treat publishers.. it's because of how they treat consumers.
This is a war between giant corporations that is putting us, the consumers, the lifeblood of BOTH of these companies, in the firing line.
I just hope that console gamers are smart enough to take issue with this like PC gamers did with Spore.
(also, anyone who doubts the right of resale should google the First Sale Doctrine.. "a copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made")[/quote]
Sorry to quote so much, but this deserves to be seen again.
Hybrid5006
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 228 (100%)
Great way to hurt the consumer! I know GameStop makes a lot of money from used game sales, but I'd rather give it to them then to EA.
I'm really surprised that CAGs think this is a good idea, at least based purely on what we might conceive as "double dipping" on used games. I.e., now you're paying Gamestop's ridiculous prices on a used game (saving five dollars, wow thanks) AND you're paying some bucks for (correct me if I'm wrong since I don't play sports games) a somewhat useful feature that seems well-integrated into a game.
I think we all know the astounding incompetance that completely infests Gamestop, so we KNOW they aren't going to tell consumers about this sort of thing. And EA certainly knows that. The "target victim" ('cuz it aint a demographic) are the ones who will get kicked in the balls by this. We - the informed gaming elite of CAG and the Internetz Commonwealth - will know to avoid it. But the average EA Sports junkie won't, and NO ONE is going to tell them "Hey, you're actually going to pay 15 bucks MORE to get the full usage out of this game than if you bought it new." And even if they did, will that consumer know wtf they are talking about? Will they disregard or ignore it? Will they think the person saying it is playing a joke or being a dick, and just wants to try and get a commission by selling a new title? And if any of these things are so and they willingly ignore such remarks and get the used title, what happens when they get pissed about the missing feature? Can they return the game for a full refund?
There's just way too many intersections here me to navigate through. Too many what-if scenarios.
Anyone remember that scene in Seinfeld where he wanted to return the jacket "for spite" and they refused because that was his first reason given? I could see that conversational merry-go-round of failure happening here too.
Part of me understands what EA is doing and wants to do - it makes sense from a business exec perspective. But damn, that is some shit if you ask me. Hell of a sneaky tactic to break down used sales, and truly I hate Gamestop so I might enjoy their profits decreasing, but damn that is some shit!
Isn't the better option to give useless-but-fun incentives? Start up a Club EA and give out soundtracks or something for every 10 games you buy? Stuff that is completely separate from the game itself and all the options therein.
I'm sure I could talk about this more but I'm feeling like shit and I'm going to stop, 'cuz I know this'un is going to continue for a while.
I think we all know the astounding incompetance that completely infests Gamestop, so we KNOW they aren't going to tell consumers about this sort of thing. And EA certainly knows that. The "target victim" ('cuz it aint a demographic) are the ones who will get kicked in the balls by this. We - the informed gaming elite of CAG and the Internetz Commonwealth - will know to avoid it. But the average EA Sports junkie won't, and NO ONE is going to tell them "Hey, you're actually going to pay 15 bucks MORE to get the full usage out of this game than if you bought it new." And even if they did, will that consumer know wtf they are talking about? Will they disregard or ignore it? Will they think the person saying it is playing a joke or being a dick, and just wants to try and get a commission by selling a new title? And if any of these things are so and they willingly ignore such remarks and get the used title, what happens when they get pissed about the missing feature? Can they return the game for a full refund?
There's just way too many intersections here me to navigate through. Too many what-if scenarios.
Anyone remember that scene in Seinfeld where he wanted to return the jacket "for spite" and they refused because that was his first reason given? I could see that conversational merry-go-round of failure happening here too.
Part of me understands what EA is doing and wants to do - it makes sense from a business exec perspective. But damn, that is some shit if you ask me. Hell of a sneaky tactic to break down used sales, and truly I hate Gamestop so I might enjoy their profits decreasing, but damn that is some shit!
Isn't the better option to give useless-but-fun incentives? Start up a Club EA and give out soundtracks or something for every 10 games you buy? Stuff that is completely separate from the game itself and all the options therein.
I'm sure I could talk about this more but I'm feeling like shit and I'm going to stop, 'cuz I know this'un is going to continue for a while.
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
This is a tough one. I should disagree with the concept, but since its people buying EA games, its basically a victimless crime 
Professor Oreo
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Hybrid5006']Great way to hurt the consumer! I know GameStop makes a lot of money from used game sales, but I'd rather give it to them then to EA.[/quote]
So wait, you'd rather give your money to a third party that had nothing to do with the creation of a game, than to the parent company that actually funded the development of that game and had it created in the first place?! That's some crazy logic right there. If you hate EA so much then why buy their games at all? Or better yet, if it's a game you enjoy and actually want to play, why not help fund the people that actually made it to encourage them to make more games in the future?
If that's your stance that you'd rather help Gamestop see a profit than EA, then you're exactly the type of person that EA is trying to throttle with their one time use codes. Hurting you is not hurting their consumer base. You're Gamestop's customer not EA's. So why should they care if they piss you off if they weren't ever going to benefit from you playing their games anyway?
So wait, you'd rather give your money to a third party that had nothing to do with the creation of a game, than to the parent company that actually funded the development of that game and had it created in the first place?! That's some crazy logic right there. If you hate EA so much then why buy their games at all? Or better yet, if it's a game you enjoy and actually want to play, why not help fund the people that actually made it to encourage them to make more games in the future?
If that's your stance that you'd rather help Gamestop see a profit than EA, then you're exactly the type of person that EA is trying to throttle with their one time use codes. Hurting you is not hurting their consumer base. You're Gamestop's customer not EA's. So why should they care if they piss you off if they weren't ever going to benefit from you playing their games anyway?
captainfrizo
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
Damn. Professor is hitting this one out of the park. Well done.
itachiitachi
CAGiversary!
So if we buy the game new and don't care about roster updates we can sell our code for $20?
My only problem is if they start with holding real features, rather than stuff like stat updates, bonus songs etc. It's a slippery slope.
I buy few games new, I get most of goozex as I built up a decent base of points trading a bunch of last gen stuff and some newer 360 games. But no biggie, if companies take out too much from used version, I'll vote with my wallet and not buy the game new or used.
It's all moot anyway, in a generation or two or three it will probably be all download games. Just depends on how long it takes for broad band penetration to be high enough.
I buy few games new, I get most of goozex as I built up a decent base of points trading a bunch of last gen stuff and some newer 360 games. But no biggie, if companies take out too much from used version, I'll vote with my wallet and not buy the game new or used.
It's all moot anyway, in a generation or two or three it will probably be all download games. Just depends on how long it takes for broad band penetration to be high enough.
[quote name='007']... so, how is this any different from the 20 free songs that EA is doing with Rock Band 2 that no one seems to be complaining about? It's the same thing: buy it new, you get the code, you don't pay. Buy it used, you'll likely have to pay for them.
All this is doing is hurting our ability to be a cheapass. I mean, in all fairness, there's going to be some people so turned off by this that they won't buy it... but there's also a ton who'll just pony up the money. It's about how much you care about the game.[/quote]
With Forza 2 they promised DLC content and some was free while others seemed like a rip off. They did only a few and did not keep their promise in my book. Then later on when it became a greatest hits they offered the game plus all the DLC content for free. It's another way to alienate the consumers. They knew the game wouldn't sell for shit so they had to include the DLC. As for above, it's shit where they intentionally do it to screw the consumer that I will not put up with it.
[quote name='Professor Oreo']That's great. I'm sure everyone here is very proud of you. I'd like to see you buy a 1600 point card use 400 points and try to sell the card to someone else. Once you activate the card online, the actual printed card itself becomes useless yes? Same with the EA code that comes with the game.[/quote]
Umm... well, I buy it with the knowledge I got a good deal and more value for dlc stuff than be a reselling hoarder like some people on here and eBay.
All this is doing is hurting our ability to be a cheapass. I mean, in all fairness, there's going to be some people so turned off by this that they won't buy it... but there's also a ton who'll just pony up the money. It's about how much you care about the game.[/quote]
With Forza 2 they promised DLC content and some was free while others seemed like a rip off. They did only a few and did not keep their promise in my book. Then later on when it became a greatest hits they offered the game plus all the DLC content for free. It's another way to alienate the consumers. They knew the game wouldn't sell for shit so they had to include the DLC. As for above, it's shit where they intentionally do it to screw the consumer that I will not put up with it.
[quote name='Professor Oreo']That's great. I'm sure everyone here is very proud of you. I'd like to see you buy a 1600 point card use 400 points and try to sell the card to someone else. Once you activate the card online, the actual printed card itself becomes useless yes? Same with the EA code that comes with the game.[/quote]
Umm... well, I buy it with the knowledge I got a good deal and more value for dlc stuff than be a reselling hoarder like some people on here and eBay.
[quote name='Professor Oreo'] Well look at it this way - You buy a brand new car and it come with a full tank of gas. You drive your car around for a week and decide to sell it. You don't get to sell it as a car with a full tank of gas anymore do you? [/QUOTE]
Not with today's gas prices! Haw haw haw!
Joking aside, I'd wager that gas is a little more integral to enjoying the car than this feature in this game, which others have said wouldn't break the game if you didn't use it.
So I'm not sure the analogy holds, but honestly? My head is killing me so I might not be thinkin' straight.
Not with today's gas prices! Haw haw haw!
Joking aside, I'd wager that gas is a little more integral to enjoying the car than this feature in this game, which others have said wouldn't break the game if you didn't use it.
So I'm not sure the analogy holds, but honestly? My head is killing me so I might not be thinkin' straight.
[quote name='dmaul1114']My only problem is if they start with holding real features, rather than stuff like stat updates, bonus songs etc. It's a slippery slope.
[/quote]
That's already happening, you get a code with Gears of War 2 to download 5 GoW1 maps. Also Rock Band 2 will have 20 downloadable songs, which I believe (but could be incorrect, if I am some one please correct me) requires a code that comes with the game.
Honestly I've seen things like this coming for a long time, and it doesn't really bother me, 98% of the games I buy are new.
[/quote]
That's already happening, you get a code with Gears of War 2 to download 5 GoW1 maps. Also Rock Band 2 will have 20 downloadable songs, which I believe (but could be incorrect, if I am some one please correct me) requires a code that comes with the game.
Honestly I've seen things like this coming for a long time, and it doesn't really bother me, 98% of the games I buy are new.
this wont hurt them too much since most diehard ea sports title fans buy the new shit regularly so price isnt an issue but that will definetly kill resale value on ea titles for the avg joe who dont want to pay full price for simple updates. sucks that ea has the rights to the nfl.
Creative. But wrong.
It's like saying you bought a used car, you can't use fifth gear without paying 2k fee.
I don't care about sports games, and I think there is precedent with things like the RB2 "bonus" tracks and first-owner bonuses, and at least the game can still be resold, but yes, this is a slippery slope.
I don't buy the "used games hurt the market" BS. Used everything is a part of any commodity market, and the gaming industry is nothing special. It's bad enough with nontransferable XBLA games, but if they could make that happen with full price disk based games, I'd really have to consider if i wanted to continue supporting an industry that apparently hates consumers.
It's like saying you bought a used car, you can't use fifth gear without paying 2k fee.
I don't care about sports games, and I think there is precedent with things like the RB2 "bonus" tracks and first-owner bonuses, and at least the game can still be resold, but yes, this is a slippery slope.
I don't buy the "used games hurt the market" BS. Used everything is a part of any commodity market, and the gaming industry is nothing special. It's bad enough with nontransferable XBLA games, but if they could make that happen with full price disk based games, I'd really have to consider if i wanted to continue supporting an industry that apparently hates consumers.
[quote name='Kaijufan']That's already happening, you get a code with Gears of War 2 to download 5 GoW1 maps. Also Rock Band 2 will have 20 downloadable songs, which I believe (but could be incorrect, if I am some one please correct me) requires a code that comes with the game.
[/quote]
I mentioned bonus songs in the part you quoted. I don't really mind their being extras for people who buy the game new--extra songs, extra maps etc. I just don't like that it's a slippery slope where they start holding back regular content or features, or even give games one time use activation codes so they can't be resold at all etc.
That would bother me as I get a ton of games from Goozex and get rid of everything but a handful of games I get into online as soon as I beat them. If it's just bonus features to give people added incentive to buy new, I have less problem. It's not much different that certain retailers getting a game content bonus for preorders or something, just on a larger scale and with more bonus content.
[/quote]
I mentioned bonus songs in the part you quoted. I don't really mind their being extras for people who buy the game new--extra songs, extra maps etc. I just don't like that it's a slippery slope where they start holding back regular content or features, or even give games one time use activation codes so they can't be resold at all etc.
That would bother me as I get a ton of games from Goozex and get rid of everything but a handful of games I get into online as soon as I beat them. If it's just bonus features to give people added incentive to buy new, I have less problem. It's not much different that certain retailers getting a game content bonus for preorders or something, just on a larger scale and with more bonus content.
1) Why don't publishers have their own trade in service or sell their own used games? It only costs $2 to send a game with case via first class mail. This is how car manufacturers got into the used market (certified used).
2) There is a large aftermarket for most consumer products. A simple Ebay search turned up over 600 active items for my company. My company gets nothing for these sales. Why are video games so special?
2) There is a large aftermarket for most consumer products. A simple Ebay search turned up over 600 active items for my company. My company gets nothing for these sales. Why are video games so special?
Meh, in a year the game will be 14.99 used at gamestop. While the 20.00 cost seems outrageous, if you consider how quickly sports games drop in used-value... it's almost a non-issue. This could spawn into something much bigger, but several games are offering first-purchaser bonuses (somewhat like pre-order bonuses), but intentionally holding back features is pretty trashy.
Aftermarket sales have been, and will likely, remain a major component of the video game market. EA just needs to get over themselves, hell... they already bank off the people paying for "special" add-ons the majority of which should have been originally included with the game.
Aftermarket sales have been, and will likely, remain a major component of the video game market. EA just needs to get over themselves, hell... they already bank off the people paying for "special" add-ons the majority of which should have been originally included with the game.
Who buys used sports games anyway? If you're buying a used copy of Madden 06 I don't think you'll mind not being able to update your rosters via online. I see this affecting a small portion of people, but when the used price is $54.99+$20 and new is $60, no one will be buying a recent game used.
PenguinMaster
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
It doesn't take long for any games to be $20 cheaper for a used copy than a new copy and I'd rather have whatever they make into DLC for used copies be optional for me to buy anyway. Other companies have already done similar things by releasing or rereleasing a game with a code for extra maps that is one time use.
One of the primary reasons companies are releasing DLC is so they have complete control over the price of the item and there is no resale market, this is nothing new.
One of the primary reasons companies are releasing DLC is so they have complete control over the price of the item and there is no resale market, this is nothing new.
djshot
CAG Veteran
thats a big pain for Gstop if u think bout it they take those sport EA games in for practically nothing (avg trade in is 1-3$ if even that) and they sell them for like 20 / 30 / and even new madden 08 is 54.99 lol they cant charge that if its missing features -- goodluck EA but i hate u too -- lol
Radioactive_Man
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 8 (100%)
Good for them, hopefully it works out well for EA.
First sale doctrine [17 USC §109(a)]→ the copyright owner only has the rights with respect to the first sale; he may not limit the sale by purchasers ( the exception being licensed products ie itunes).
In other words if you buy a new book the author/publishing house cannot prevent you as the purchaser from reselling that book. EA is attempting to control the used game market which is bullshit and violates all sort of legal rights. Furthermore, think about how this will adversely affect game rentals from Netflix or BB. EA has no
en clue what they're doing.
In other words if you buy a new book the author/publishing house cannot prevent you as the purchaser from reselling that book. EA is attempting to control the used game market which is bullshit and violates all sort of legal rights. Furthermore, think about how this will adversely affect game rentals from Netflix or BB. EA has no
en clue what they're doing.
[quote name='kill3r7']First sale doctrine [17 USC §109(a)]→ the copyright owner only has the rights with respect to the first sale; he may not limit the sale by purchasers ( the exception being licensed products ie itunes).
In other words if you buy a new book the author/publishing house cannot prevent you as the purchaser from reselling that book. EA is attempting to control the used game market which is bullshit and violates all sort of legal rights. Furthermore, think about how this will adversely affect game rentals from Netflix or BB. EA has noen clue what they're doing.[/quote]
Can you be more wrong? You act like this is the first time some company has done something like this. You really have no clue what "first sale" means or entails.
EA is not attempting to control the used game market here. They are simply putting a limitation on a ADDITIONAL NON-REQUIRED feature of the game. If you buy the game used and want the feature, pay for it. This isn't a hard concept to understand.
How is this ANY different than what Activision did with the Call of Duty 4 game of the year edition? You buy the game, it had a code. You use the code, it's tied to your live account. You trade the game in. Someone else buys the game and cannot use the code (or the code isn't in the box). The new owner has to pay $9.99 for the 4 maps. Please explain how that is any different than what EA is doing here.
In other words if you buy a new book the author/publishing house cannot prevent you as the purchaser from reselling that book. EA is attempting to control the used game market which is bullshit and violates all sort of legal rights. Furthermore, think about how this will adversely affect game rentals from Netflix or BB. EA has no
en clue what they're doing.[/quote]Can you be more wrong? You act like this is the first time some company has done something like this. You really have no clue what "first sale" means or entails.
EA is not attempting to control the used game market here. They are simply putting a limitation on a ADDITIONAL NON-REQUIRED feature of the game. If you buy the game used and want the feature, pay for it. This isn't a hard concept to understand.
How is this ANY different than what Activision did with the Call of Duty 4 game of the year edition? You buy the game, it had a code. You use the code, it's tied to your live account. You trade the game in. Someone else buys the game and cannot use the code (or the code isn't in the box). The new owner has to pay $9.99 for the 4 maps. Please explain how that is any different than what EA is doing here.
[quote name='mtxbass1']Can you be more wrong? You act like this is the first time some company has done something like this. You really have no clue what "first sale" means or entails.
EA is not attempting to control the used game market here. They are simply putting a limitation on a ADDITIONAL NON-REQUIRED feature of the game. If you buy the game used and want the feature, pay for it. This isn't a hard concept to understand.
How is this ANY different than what Activision did with the Call of Duty 4 game of the year edition? You buy the game, it had a code. You use the code, it's tied to your live account. You trade the game in. Someone else buys the game and cannot use the code (or the code isn't in the box). The new owner has to pay $9.99 for the 4 maps. Please explain how that is any different than what EA is doing here.[/quote]
Please explain to me how this is not a first sale issue...if this isn't a first sale issue then why are they limiting the content.
The stats update feature is touted as being the "DNA" of the game. This is not simply just some tack on feature such as maps/additional content, this is theen game.
EA is not attempting to control the used game market here. They are simply putting a limitation on a ADDITIONAL NON-REQUIRED feature of the game. If you buy the game used and want the feature, pay for it. This isn't a hard concept to understand.
How is this ANY different than what Activision did with the Call of Duty 4 game of the year edition? You buy the game, it had a code. You use the code, it's tied to your live account. You trade the game in. Someone else buys the game and cannot use the code (or the code isn't in the box). The new owner has to pay $9.99 for the 4 maps. Please explain how that is any different than what EA is doing here.[/quote]
Please explain to me how this is not a first sale issue...if this isn't a first sale issue then why are they limiting the content.
The stats update feature is touted as being the "DNA" of the game. This is not simply just some tack on feature such as maps/additional content, this is the
en game.
I made the flip to NBA Live last year in terms of basketball games. I do a lot of renting from GameFly, so I'm basically getting the idea that if I get one of the first rental copies that the code will be on my console. If anyone else who rents the game from GameFly gets an previously rented copy, that feature is going to get locked out for every single person who gets that copy. Unless the first renter buys it out of the gate, of course. This is hurting more than just GameStop. This also hurts rental services and chains a little, too. People who want to rent the game will have this highly-touted feature blocked out.
I just don't see how a policy like this will end up helping anyone. 2K9 will probably get put into the GameFly queue now, but I may purchase Live at a later point (aka when I have the extra cash flow). But I do think EA made a poor mistake here.
I just don't see how a policy like this will end up helping anyone. 2K9 will probably get put into the GameFly queue now, but I may purchase Live at a later point (aka when I have the extra cash flow). But I do think EA made a poor mistake here.
[quote name='kill3r7']Please explain to me how this is not a first sale issue...if this isn't a first sale issue then why are they limiting the content.
The stats update feature is touted as being the "DNA" of the game. This is not simply just some tack on feature such as maps/additional content, this is theen game.[/quote]
The feature is completely OPTIONAL. It is not required for play. It has absolutely nothing to do with first sale. PERIOD. EA is not limiting you from reselling the game. You can resell it to your hearts content. If the new purchaser wants this OPTIONAL feature, then they can pay for it.
The feature itself produces live stats on players throughout the season. It is in no way vital to gameplay, or required to make the game work.
The stats update feature is touted as being the "DNA" of the game. This is not simply just some tack on feature such as maps/additional content, this is the
en game.[/quote]The feature is completely OPTIONAL. It is not required for play. It has absolutely nothing to do with first sale. PERIOD. EA is not limiting you from reselling the game. You can resell it to your hearts content. If the new purchaser wants this OPTIONAL feature, then they can pay for it.
The feature itself produces live stats on players throughout the season. It is in no way vital to gameplay, or required to make the game work.
blandstalker
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
[quote name='mtxbass1']The feature itself produces live stats on players throughout the season. It is in no way vital to gameplay, or required to make the game work.[/quote]
What is vital to gameplay or required to make the game work?
I can think of plenty of demos that are perfectly contained -- they function fully, but end after a period of time or contain only one level.
They have everything vital to gameplay and required to make the game work. They just have a lot less of it.
How do we know what is included in a game? Publicity? Previews? The box art? Reviews? Word of mouth?
It's an inexact thing now. What's it going to be like when consumers have no idea what they're purchasing?
Maybe that's the point. To scare consumers into always buying new, since they have no idea what kind of gimped piece of shit they'll end up with.
To hell with GS -- what's going to happen if you want to sell or give the game directly to someone? Or take it to your friend's house, or to school, or to your relatives for a few weeks? If you don't care, I guess you don't care. But why should EA decide how you should use the product you paid for? "Because they can" seems like a really lame answer.
I also really don't see how making consumers jump through hoops with codes, DLC, or other annoyances is going to make things better. For them, certainly. For everyone else? Not so much.
What is vital to gameplay or required to make the game work?
I can think of plenty of demos that are perfectly contained -- they function fully, but end after a period of time or contain only one level.
They have everything vital to gameplay and required to make the game work. They just have a lot less of it.
How do we know what is included in a game? Publicity? Previews? The box art? Reviews? Word of mouth?
It's an inexact thing now. What's it going to be like when consumers have no idea what they're purchasing?
Maybe that's the point. To scare consumers into always buying new, since they have no idea what kind of gimped piece of shit they'll end up with.
To hell with GS -- what's going to happen if you want to sell or give the game directly to someone? Or take it to your friend's house, or to school, or to your relatives for a few weeks? If you don't care, I guess you don't care. But why should EA decide how you should use the product you paid for? "Because they can" seems like a really lame answer.
I also really don't see how making consumers jump through hoops with codes, DLC, or other annoyances is going to make things better. For them, certainly. For everyone else? Not so much.
Professor Oreo
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Regian']I made the flip to NBA Live last year in terms of basketball games. I do a lot of renting from GameFly, so I'm basically getting the idea that if I get one of the first rental copies that the code will be on my console. If anyone else who rents the game from GameFly gets an previously rented copy, that feature is going to get locked out for every single person who gets that copy. Unless the first renter buys it out of the gate, of course. This is hurting more than just GameStop. This also hurts rental services and chains a little, too. People who want to rent the game will have this highly-touted feature blocked out.
I just don't see how a policy like this will end up helping anyone. 2K9 will probably get put into the GameFly queue now, but I may purchase Live at a later point (aka when I have the extra cash flow). But I do think EA made a poor mistake here.[/quote]
So, you're now considering purchasing their game instead of just renting it? Actually I think you just proved EA's point.
I just don't see how a policy like this will end up helping anyone. 2K9 will probably get put into the GameFly queue now, but I may purchase Live at a later point (aka when I have the extra cash flow). But I do think EA made a poor mistake here.[/quote]
So, you're now considering purchasing their game instead of just renting it? Actually I think you just proved EA's point.
[quote name='Professor Oreo']So, you're now considering purchasing their game instead of just renting it? Actually I think you just proved EA's point.[/quote]
Yeah. I may just rent it out and hold out until it goes on the cheap. I'm not gonna someone else over on the deal.
Win some, lose some.
Yeah. I may just rent it out and hold out until it goes on the cheap. I'm not gonna
someone else over on the deal.Win some, lose some.
DarkSageRK
Banned
[quote name='VipFREAK']
They are still around for a reason people. Don't buy theiring shit and they won't be able to do this kind of crap or won't be around at all. Simple as that.[/quote]
No. That's the problem. You kids HAVEN'T been buying their shit.
They are still around for a reason people. Don't buy their
ing shit and they won't be able to do this kind of crap or won't be around at all. Simple as that.[/quote]No. That's the problem. You kids HAVEN'T been buying their shit.
Professor Oreo
CAGiversary!
[quote name='blandstalker']What is vital to gameplay or required to make the game work?
I can think of plenty of demos that are perfectly contained -- they function fully, but end after a period of time or contain only one level.
They have everything vital to gameplay and required to make the game work. They just have a lot less of it.
How do we know what is included in a game? Publicity? Previews? The box art? Reviews? Word of mouth?
It's an inexact thing now. What's it going to be like when consumers have no idea what they're purchasing?
Maybe that's the point. To scare consumers into always buying new, since they have no idea what kind of gimped piece of shit they'll end up with.
To hell with GS -- what's going to happen if you want to sell or give the game directly to someone? Or take it to your friend's house, or to school, or to your relatives for a few weeks? If you don't care, I guess you don't care. But why should EA decide how you should use the product you paid for? "Because they can" seems like a really lame answer.
I also really don't see how making consumers jump through hoops with codes, DLC, or other annoyances is going to make things better. For them, certainly. For everyone else? Not so much.[/quote]
You don't pay for demos. What difference does it make how much of a game is in a demo if it doesn't cost you anything? You want the full game you pay for it.
Also, it's ALWAYS been the consumers job to do their own research and make an educated purchase. You should never trust ANY company to always be upfront and gift you every piece of info about their products in big bold letters. The fine print is fine for a reason. Some shit they really don't want you to know and hope you dont see. Is EA being secretive about what they're doing? I have no idea, but I know the game's not even out yet and we all know about this issue. So will they spell it out on the box, I'm guessing that they will but probably in fine print. Nobody knows for sure until the game comes out.
You want to take your game to a friends house or to school to play it? Log into your account at any of those other locations and play as yourself. End of story. Here's a question? What if the friend you want to loan your game to doesn't have access to broadband and can't get his system on the internet. Is EA somehow handicapping his game and ruining his experience because he won't have access to the online stat updates? Oh Noes! They are teh evils!
Lastly since when is inputting a code/password making consumers jump thru hoops? Didn't you have to input a password into CAG to register your user account to post your comment? OMG! Cheapy D and EA must be conspiring together to ruin your life!
I can think of plenty of demos that are perfectly contained -- they function fully, but end after a period of time or contain only one level.
They have everything vital to gameplay and required to make the game work. They just have a lot less of it.
How do we know what is included in a game? Publicity? Previews? The box art? Reviews? Word of mouth?
It's an inexact thing now. What's it going to be like when consumers have no idea what they're purchasing?
Maybe that's the point. To scare consumers into always buying new, since they have no idea what kind of gimped piece of shit they'll end up with.
To hell with GS -- what's going to happen if you want to sell or give the game directly to someone? Or take it to your friend's house, or to school, or to your relatives for a few weeks? If you don't care, I guess you don't care. But why should EA decide how you should use the product you paid for? "Because they can" seems like a really lame answer.
I also really don't see how making consumers jump through hoops with codes, DLC, or other annoyances is going to make things better. For them, certainly. For everyone else? Not so much.[/quote]
You don't pay for demos. What difference does it make how much of a game is in a demo if it doesn't cost you anything? You want the full game you pay for it.
Also, it's ALWAYS been the consumers job to do their own research and make an educated purchase. You should never trust ANY company to always be upfront and gift you every piece of info about their products in big bold letters. The fine print is fine for a reason. Some shit they really don't want you to know and hope you dont see. Is EA being secretive about what they're doing? I have no idea, but I know the game's not even out yet and we all know about this issue. So will they spell it out on the box, I'm guessing that they will but probably in fine print. Nobody knows for sure until the game comes out.
You want to take your game to a friends house or to school to play it? Log into your account at any of those other locations and play as yourself. End of story. Here's a question? What if the friend you want to loan your game to doesn't have access to broadband and can't get his system on the internet. Is EA somehow handicapping his game and ruining his experience because he won't have access to the online stat updates? Oh Noes! They are teh evils!
Lastly since when is inputting a code/password making consumers jump thru hoops? Didn't you have to input a password into CAG to register your user account to post your comment? OMG! Cheapy D and EA must be conspiring together to ruin your life!
The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
[quote name='daroga']I guess I've got no problem with companies giving me a bonus when my money for the game purchase went into the pockets of the people who made and published the game. EA or otherwise.[/QUOTE]Exactly, that's how I feel.
Anyway, when playing both 2k9 and Live 09 demos, I feel the Live 09 demo is better in almost every way, more enjoyable, and so on. I'm just getting sick of the same old gameplay in 2k9 and Live 09 felt more refreshing. I don't see this as a problem and I'd gladly buy my copy new to get this feature. I personally feel most 2k sports are overrated these days (they were great during the Dreamcast era, but have started to falter this gen, including their basketball games, although they are their best one).
I also felt 2k9 was terribly handled on PS3 (although I have yet to play the 360 demo, last year I know the PS3 version had more jaggies), while NBA Live 09 is identical on both platforms this year.
Anyway, when playing both 2k9 and Live 09 demos, I feel the Live 09 demo is better in almost every way, more enjoyable, and so on. I'm just getting sick of the same old gameplay in 2k9 and Live 09 felt more refreshing. I don't see this as a problem and I'd gladly buy my copy new to get this feature. I personally feel most 2k sports are overrated these days (they were great during the Dreamcast era, but have started to falter this gen, including their basketball games, although they are their best one).
I also felt 2k9 was terribly handled on PS3 (although I have yet to play the 360 demo, last year I know the PS3 version had more jaggies), while NBA Live 09 is identical on both platforms this year.
Nifty_Shark
CAGiversary!
So stupid. It's sad that if I were to play a copy on someone else's 360 we cannot update the roster.
itachiitachi
CAGiversary!
[quote name='62t']Another thing people failed to mention is that this is an effective move against piracy. EA will get money from people who pirated the game if they want updates.[/quote]
I not familiar with how piracy on the consoles work, can people only pirate games but not downloadable content?
I not familiar with how piracy on the consoles work, can people only pirate games but not downloadable content?
[quote name='daroga']I guess I've got no problem with companies giving me a bonus when my money for the game purchase went into the pockets of the people who made and published the game. EA or otherwise.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty much there. As I said, I don't' care much as it's just bonuses. If they start taking out major featues--i.e. lock out online play or something huge like that I'd have issues since I use Goozex so much. I just worry about the slipper slope factor.
But I can live with bonus. Will just buy new if it's something I want and the bonus is worth paying $60 to buy new, and just do without the bonus if it's not.
I'm pretty much there. As I said, I don't' care much as it's just bonuses. If they start taking out major featues--i.e. lock out online play or something huge like that I'd have issues since I use Goozex so much. I just worry about the slipper slope factor.
But I can live with bonus. Will just buy new if it's something I want and the bonus is worth paying $60 to buy new, and just do without the bonus if it's not.
At least the service is free if you buy the game new.
They could sell it as a separate service or DLC or not provide this feature at all. I doubt it costs EA nothing to produce these updates. There are developers/programmers, servers, bandwidth, maintenance, administration.
The game should be just as enjoyable without an updated roster.
I still play and enjoy Tecmo Super Bowl.
I fail to see how EA is controlling the used game market by doing this.
They could sell it as a separate service or DLC or not provide this feature at all. I doubt it costs EA nothing to produce these updates. There are developers/programmers, servers, bandwidth, maintenance, administration.
The game should be just as enjoyable without an updated roster.
I still play and enjoy Tecmo Super Bowl.
I fail to see how EA is controlling the used game market by doing this.
bread's done