EA Sucks!! If you buy a used EA game you can not play multiplayer unless...........

Some interesting info from the FAQ (http://www.easports.com/onlinepass):

What happens if my console dies or is lost or stolen?
If you have already redeemed the code from your game manual or purchased Online Pass access, you will be able to access online features from any console using the same Xbox 360 gamer tag or Playstation3 persona. You may need to go to the ‘my downloaded content’ section in Xbox LIVE Marketplace or PSN Store to re-download your EA SPORTS Online Pass.

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

Do I need an unique Online Pass for every user on my console?
No. One Online Pass will give online access to multiple users logged into the console where the Online Pass was first activated (subject to the console manufacturer’s and EA online terms of service).

Also, the user that activated the Online Pass will be allowed to access online features on other consoles (of the same manufacturer) by logging into the same account credentials that they used when they enabled the Online Pass.

What happens if I play at a friend’s console?
If you have purchased Online Pass access or redeemed a code for free access on one console, you can use your access on any other console. To do so, sign in using your Xbox LIVE gamertag or PSN ID persona on your friend’s console when playing online.
 
Oh boy. Check out this quote from the EA earnings call yesterday.

We made large number of titles, exploited a few of them in one way, packaged goods, with a much shorter number of titles that are much bigger, higher quality, exploited on multiple business models... We've cut our titles slate by a little bit more than half. Now in doing that, we're also getting more revenue per IP, and we're getting more revenue per IP by exploiting the best IP across multiple revenue models.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='jkanownik']Oh boy. Check out this quote from the EA earnings call yesterday.[/QUOTE]
:roll: Oh no. They exploited their product, which means in many instances to utilize for a profit.

EA is a business. Their intention is to make money for shareholders. Get over it.
 
[quote name='DickTowel']Such a BS way for them to make money off of people who only buy used games.[/QUOTE]

You can't blame them for trying to get SOME money off the used game market. They currently see ZERO dollars from after-market reselling.
 
I think it's a fantastic idea. I'm hoping it will severely limit the number of asshats that play online. Not only that, but the developers will see more money, which leads to titles having a bigger buget, which (hopefully) leads to better games.
 
lol, this sucks for all gamers but mostly 360 owners.

Microsoft: Pay us $40 (CAG lol) to play online...
EA: ALSO pay us $10 so you can play our game online, even though your LIVE account is to play Online.

I know Live Gold also has other things, like Netflix, but it's still bullshit.

This is stupid, if consoles go this way I'm going to switch to PC gaming.(Though I was going that way anyway...)
 
[quote name='Scorch']I think it's a fantastic idea. I'm hoping it will severely limit the number of asshats that play online. Not only that, but the developers will see more money, which leads to titles having a bigger buget, which (hopefully) leads to better games.[/QUOTE]

Sorry for the double post(maybe)

If anything it'll increase the number of asshats you'll meet online. 'Cause the rationale guy thinking he had free online, or paid online will go "Bullshit I'm not paying again/at all for something I already paid for/was promised was free".

Normally I would agree with the more money, better games, but if EA is going to force this on their biggest crowd, the Sports crowd, what's to stop them from forcing it on the "hardcore" gamer? It's kinda like that quote people always bring up about "First they came"...(and then modified to whatever you're talking about). If it was just $10 for an EA account thing, it would be different. But no, it's $10 PER game.

First the sports gamers(masses)
Then you.

Really? More money? EA probably makes 5x more then what it cost to make on the Madden series alone.
 
[quote name='HaLLuZiNaTiOnZ']Sorry for the double post(maybe)

If anything it'll increase the number of asshats you'll meet online. 'Cause the rationale guy thinking he had free online, or paid online will go "Bullshit I'm not paying again/at all for something I already paid for/was promised was free".

Normally I would agree with the more money, better games, but if EA is going to force this on their biggest crowd, the Sports crowd, what's to stop them from forcing it on the "hardcore" gamer? It's kinda like that quote people always bring up about "First they came"...(and then modified to whatever you're talking about). If it was just $10 for an EA account thing, it would be different. But no, it's $10 PER game.

First the sports gamers(masses)
Then you.

Really? More money? EA probably makes 5x more then what it cost to make on the Madden series alone.[/QUOTE]

I seriously doubt someone buys ALL of their sports games used. This $10 charge thing will probably go unnoticed by the hardest of the hardcore EA Sports fans. They buy their titles day one and usually hold onto them for...well, forever.
 
[quote name='A Happy Panda']You can't blame them for trying to get SOME money off the used game market. They currently see ZERO dollars from after-market reselling.[/QUOTE]

Do any companies make money after their products are sold second hand? I can't really think of any. So if u bought a vacuum of Craigslist, you have to send Hoover a $10 check before you can use any of the attachments
 
[quote name='A Happy Panda']You can't blame them for trying to get SOME money off the used game market. They currently see ZERO dollars from after-market reselling.[/QUOTE]

Is EA taking on the expense and overhead of buying and selling used games? So why should they reap any of the benefits?

[quote name='smiggity']Do any companies make money after their products are sold second hand? I can't really think of any. So if u bought a vacuum of Craigslist, you have to send Hoover a $10 check before you can use any of the attachments[/QUOTE]

The terrible fact of life is that companies in the entertainment field now feel that they control the product that they sell you. Never mind that little fact that once money changes hands so does ownership.

I just can't wait to see the next step, no offline multiplayer. After all if two people want to play a game, they both should own a copy!
 
[quote name='A Happy Panda']I seriously doubt someone buys ALL of their sports games used. This $10 charge thing will probably go unnoticed by the hardest of the hardcore EA Sports fans. They buy their titles day one and usually hold onto them for...well, forever.[/QUOTE]

i do either used or new when theyre really cheap but thats because im not a sports game nut. the majority of sports game nuts will always buy games new but for those who ust like to play the occasional game its easier and cheaper to wait a while.
 
[quote name='smiggity']Do any companies make money after their products are sold second hand? I can't really think of any. So if u bought a vacuum of Craigslist, you have to send Hoover a $10 check before you can use any of the attachments[/QUOTE]

See where you're trying to go, but it's a dead-end. When you buy a vacuum, for instance, from someone else, you're not getting anything from the vacuum company. In the case of a game that has an online component, though, you're still getting access to the component, which they may or may not update...and in EA's case, servers that they maintain. All of that costs money. EA is tired of getting nothing in return from people who buy used games and then use their online components. If you were a game publisher, you'd feel the same way.
 
[quote name='smiggity']Do any companies make money after their products are sold second hand? I can't really think of any. So if u bought a vacuum of Craigslist, you have to send Hoover a $10 check before you can use any of the attachments[/QUOTE]

I suppose the slight difference is there isn't a Vacuum shop in every mall trying to sell you a 2nd hand vacuum instead of a new one.

IMO this whole thing is aimed directly at Game stop, anyone else who suffers is just getting caught in the crossfire.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']See where you're trying to go, but it's a dead-end. When you buy a vacuum, for instance, from someone else, you're not getting anything from the vacuum company. In the case of a game that has an online component, though, you're still getting access to the component, which they may or may not update...and in EA's case, servers that they maintain. All of that costs money. EA is tired of getting nothing in return from people who buy used games and then use their online components. If you were a game publisher, you'd feel the same way.[/QUOTE]

This and Hoover doesn't have a team of several hundred people spending a good year making a sports title that cost them several million to produce.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']See where you're trying to go, but it's a dead-end. When you buy a vacuum, for instance, from someone else, you're not getting anything from the vacuum company. In the case of a game that has an online component, though, you're still getting access to the component, which they may or may not update...and in EA's case, servers that they maintain. All of that costs money. EA is tired of getting nothing in return from people who buy used games and then use their online components. If you were a game publisher, you'd feel the same way.[/QUOTE]

Very true. But their server costs should be covered by all the NEW copies sold, because all used copies were at one time sold as new. Buying an item should grant you all possible uses.

[quote name='wildcpac']This and Hoover doesn't have a team of several hundred people spending a good year making a sports title that cost them several million to produce.[/QUOTE]

Im sure Hoover has spent several million dollars developing new vacuum technologies. Seriously. Not every year though. But still, If you take away the licensing fees, I bet they do not spend that much developing each iteration of Madden, only when they do substantial engine upgrades and whatnot do they spend serious dough
 
Server cost should be maintained by everybody who access it. People who buy the game new shouldn't be penalized. People who buy the game used should contribute.

Hoover also has a market that reaches every single household in the U.S. and across the globe. Madden 2011 is niche compared to that.
 
Server cost is paid for easily after the initial sales is all Im saying. And I am absolutely positive the marginal cost of adding one more (used game buyer) person on those servers is not ten bucks. Like someone else mentioned, $5 is much more reasonable.
 
This will affect more than just the used market.

If you purchase a game new (like I ALWAYS do) and then redeem the code, you will not be able to play online at a friends house or on another system in your own home!

This is not good folks. Seriously, this is NOT a good move for gamers.
 
[quote name='DrumsVocalsKeys']If you purchase a game new (like I ALWAYS do) and then redeem the code, you will not be able to play online at a friends house or on another system in your own home! .[/QUOTE]

Yeah you can.
[quote name='GamerChris']
What happens if I play at a friend’s console?
If you have purchased Online Pass access or redeemed a code for free access on one console, you can use your access on any other console. To do so, sign in using your Xbox LIVE gamertag or PSN ID persona on your friend’s console when playing online.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='wildcpac']Server cost should be maintained by everybody who access it. People who buy the game new shouldn't be penalized. People who buy the game used should contribute.

Hoover also has a market that reaches every single household in the U.S. and across the globe. Madden 2011 is niche compared to that.[/QUOTE]

How are people who buy the game new being penalized?

It's not a $10 fee on top of the $60 you're paying...you bought the game new, you get access to online. End o' story.

Not necessarily defending EA, but the fuss and ruckus over this, though not surprising, is a bit unwarranted to me.
 
[quote name='Chibi_Kaji']Yeah you can.[/QUOTE]

Thanks Chibi_Kaji. I stand corrected on my original statement.

However, I neglected get into further detail on how this would still affect mulitple gamers in one home.

If gamertag A redeems the code and gametag B visits a friends house to play online, gamertag B will not be able to play online, since it was not the original account that redeemed the code.
 
Doesn't bother me. I don't play EA Sports games, I almost never buy used (especially current-gen stuff), and I barely get online in games either.

It's smart on their end. GameStop is making tons...and EA wants to cut into that.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']See where you're trying to go, but it's a dead-end. When you buy a vacuum, for instance, from someone else, you're not getting anything from the vacuum company. In the case of a game that has an online component, though, you're still getting access to the component, which they may or may not update...and in EA's case, servers that they maintain. All of that costs money. EA is tired of getting nothing in return from people who buy used games and then use their online components. If you were a game publisher, you'd feel the same way.[/QUOTE]


When a game is bought used the factor to maintain the online component doesn't change. The person who (originally) bought the game isn't going to be playing online anymore and the right to play online should therefore be transferred to the next person. From a technical standpoint, a used game does not increase the load on EA's servers since the original sale should have paid for that cost.

Not to mention your resale value is instantly valued less once you use the code. That's my big beef here. If EA was really so concerned about the cost to maintain online servers, they should drop the MSRP by $10 and make the online portion of the game a $10 subscription regardless of whether or not the copy is new or used. In that instance it's not unfairly penalizing new copies or the first sale doctrine, but we all know that it's really about EA reaching into the cookie jar for a cash grab of the crumbs.

I just know I won't be buying any EA games with an online pass, be it new or used.
 
[quote name='BlueLobstah']When a game is bought used the factor to maintain the online component doesn't change. The person who (originally) bought the game isn't going to be playing online anymore and the right to play online should therefore be transferred to the next person. From a technical standpoint, a used game does not increase the load on EA's servers since the original sale should have paid for that cost.
[/QUOTE]

Ya, I just saw this point being brought up at another forum. If the cost of maintaining the servers is included in the price of the new game. How does EA have an extra burden if a person other than the original owner is using that server?
 
What angers me, the used video game market has been around for 20+ years, yet now developers are complaining about it, not to mention other entertainment industries don't complain.

You buy a used book, does the publisher care? You buy a used CD, does the music industry care? You buy a used DVD, does the MPAA care?
 
[quote name='chatgirl4']What angers me, the used video game market has been around for 20+ years, yet now developers are complaining about it, not to mention other entertainment industries don't complain.

You buy a used book, does the publisher care? You buy a used CD, does the music industry care? You buy a used DVD, does the MPAA care?[/QUOTE]

i think theyve always had an issue with it but it only got worse over time as they saw gamestops profits increase and their own profits decrease. ea wouldnt be as bad off if they didnt release the same damn game more or less every year. alot of people who play sports games on a whim dont need to have the newest greatest each damn year.

before i got tiger woods 09 i was playing 07 and only picked up 09 because it was 20 bucks . space those games out by a year whats it going to hurt you ? imagine if they did the same thing with their action/adventure titles. deadspace 09, deadspace 10 , deadspace 11.
 
[quote name='chatgirl4']What angers me, the used video game market has been around for 20+ years, yet now developers are complaining about it, not to mention other entertainment industries don't complain.

You buy a used book, does the publisher care? You buy a used CD, does the music industry care? You buy a used DVD, does the MPAA care?[/QUOTE]
The internet wasn't exactly around back then so that developers actually had a voice that the general population could easily hear to see what they really think about the industry. Bands complain all the time about how they make nothing off of CDs while the labels take all of that money and movie studios have multiple points where they can get money from people for the same movies (theater, retail, itunes), so there are different circumstances for each of those industries as to how these things affect them.

The used market for games didn't really get all that big until GameStop/Funcoland/Babbages/etc. started becoming one large corporate monster that does everything they can do to get more profit from used games. You can't really act like it's been exactly the same situation for 20+ years when many things have changed greatly since then.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']The internet wasn't exactly around back then so that developers actually had a voice that the general population could easily hear to see what they really think about the industry. Bands complain all the time about how they make nothing off of CDs while the labels take all of that money and movie studios have multiple points where they can get money from people for the same movies (theater, retail, itunes), so there are different circumstances for each of those industries as to how these things affect them.
[/QUOTE]

You can argue, though, that games cost more money right off the bat compared to other entertainment venues ($59.99) and they make money from the same game via downloadable content. In fact, Call of Duty Modern Warefare 2's Stimulus Package has had over 2.5 million downloads and has made millions of dollars on that alone.
 
[quote name='chatgirl4']What angers me, the used video game market has been around for 20+ years, yet now developers are complaining about it, not to mention other entertainment industries don't complain.

You buy a used book, does the publisher care? You buy a used CD, does the music industry care? You buy a used DVD, does the MPAA care?[/QUOTE]

Your entire post is based on a false assumption...that these other industries don't care. You don't think other industries care about the money they lose to the used market? Yeah, I doubt that.
 
EA just reported that they lost $677MM last year on $3.654B in revenue. Put another way, they over-invested at least $677MM (or 15%) into their games than they should have. Even if they had charged $10 more for every single game they produced they still would have lost money.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']The used market for games didn't really get all that big until GameStop/Funcoland/Babbages/etc. started becoming one large corporate monster that does everything they can do to get more profit from used games. You can't really act like it's been exactly the same situation for 20+ years when many things have changed greatly since then.[/QUOTE]

Isn't this more of an indictment against publishers than anything else?
 
[quote name='smiggity'] So if u bought a vacuum of Craigslist, you have to send Hoover a $10 check before you can use any of the attachments[/QUOTE]

Who the fuck buys a USED vacuum? lol. I would have difficulty taking one for free.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']Not particularly sure the point here. Companies have good years and bad years. Also, a smaller loss is better than a bigger loss.[/QUOTE]

It's a few years in a row now for EA. In the business world people that complain about things without offering solutions are quickly shown the door. EA is losing money. How should they correct that? They reduced their development expenses and improved game quality but those alone were not enough. Now they are looking into additional revenue streams.
 
[quote name='jkanownik']It's a few years in a row now for EA. In the business world people that complain about things without offering solutions are quickly shown the door. EA is losing money. How should they correct that? They reduced their development expenses and improved game quality but those alone were not enough. Now they are looking into additional revenue streams.[/QUOTE]

I am still eagerly waiting for EA's stock to dip just a bit lower so I can snatch up some stock.

Then I'll play the waiting game in the hopes that someone eventually buys EA, which I think could very well happen.
 
[quote name='A Happy Panda']I am still eagerly waiting for EA's stock to dip just a bit lower so I can snatch up some stock.

Then I'll play the waiting game in the hopes that someone eventually buys EA, which I think could very well happen.[/QUOTE]

At this point the bulk of the value of EA is in The Old Republic. It would be an extremely risky acquisition with the game still at least a year away and the impact of Cataclysm still relatively unknown.
 
[quote name='Rozz']You can argue, though, that games cost more money right off the bat compared to other entertainment venues ($59.99) and they make money from the same game via downloadable content. In fact, Call of Duty Modern Warefare 2's Stimulus Package has had over 2.5 million downloads and has made millions of dollars on that alone.[/QUOTE]
The pricing's a fact that has been the standard for a long time now, but that's more due to having one main avenue for funds from the players at retail. Now they have an additional avenue in DLC that's far from guaranteed unless they game has a huge active fanbase (Halo, Call of Duty) that will pay whatever the publisher wants for it. Not everybody uses DLC just to wring more money out of their customers.
[quote name='paddlefoot']Isn't this more of an indictment against publishers than anything else?[/QUOTE]
How are the publishers responsible for GameStop getting big enough that they have pretty much no competition at this point? They've done enough on their own to make as much money as they can, like offering crap trade-in value to sell those used games for nearly full MSRP and not stocking games after a certain point after launch to force used sales.
 
[quote name='DrumsVocalsKeys']Thanks Chibi_Kaji. I stand corrected on my original statement.

However, I neglected get into further detail on how this would still affect mulitple gamers in one home.

If gamertag A redeems the code and gametag B visits a friends house to play online, gamertag B will not be able to play online, since it was not the original account that redeemed the code.[/QUOTE]

Seriously, will you go read their FAQ?
http://www.easports.com/onlinepass

"Do I need an unique Online Pass for every user on my console?
No. One Online Pass will give online access to multiple users logged into the console where the Online Pass was first activated (subject to the console manufacturer’s and EA online terms of service).

Also, the user that activated the Online Pass will be allowed to access online features on other consoles (of the same manufacturer) by logging into the same account credentials that they used when they enabled the Online Pass."
 
[quote name='HaLLuZiNaTiOnZ']lol, this sucks for all gamers but mostly 360 owners.

Microsoft: Pay us $40 (CAG lol) to play online...
EA: ALSO pay us $10 so you can play our game online, even though your LIVE account is to play Online.
[/QUOTE]

Um, if you buy the game new you don't have to pay a thing to EA.
 
[quote name='Nogib']I actually agree with EA doing this. Nothing wrong with making sure devs get PAID instead of the countless moochers out there renting/borrowing games endlessly netting them dime zero.[/QUOTE]

Moochers When they buy a "USED game" it comes with MULTIPLAYER thats a part of the game. When you "RENT" a game it comes with MULTIPLAYER its a part of the game. Now they are simply saying if you buy "USED" you have to pay us 10.00 more dollars for that part of the game which was already there when first bought.
THis is very obvious just pure greed. If there servers couldnt handle for disc 89,000 bought new or used then they shouldnt of sold it. What does it matter who is playing the online feature it was there when bought new.
 
This does make me like EA alot less, I buy most of my games used and will not buy many EA titles from now on. Also, this really screws people such as gamefly users, how are they going to do that other than anybody that rents gets a lesser product. fuck EA
 
[quote name='jkanownik']At this point the bulk of the value of EA is in The Old Republic. It would be an extremely risky acquisition with the game still at least a year away and the impact of Cataclysm still relatively unknown.[/QUOTE]

The bulk? That's pretty untrue. I would say sure, they have a nice bit of change riding on that game's success, but definitely not the bulk. The EA Sports brand is still very much the prize, with Bioware, and Criterion also being very, very attractive companies to bring into the fold of whatever company could buy EA, assuming all the studios EA owns are part of the deal as well.

They are shifting their EA Partners focus to smaller games, but still sprinkling in big blockbusters (Crysis 2, Bulletstorm) they have become much, much less of the corporate overlords they once were, they actually LISTEN to gamers now (sometimes, not all the time) and are willing to create more original games.

Anyways, EA is much MUCH larger than 1 single MMO from 1 single studio.

I still think Disney would be a good suitor with EA. Disney Interactive is still pretty small fry comparatively in terms of revenue, and the only well known developer out of that arm of the company is Blackrock Studios. Marvel + Disney + EA would be a juggernaut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top