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

[quote name='A Happy Panda']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.[/QUOTE]

Filler that doesn't make a profit has no value. Ex: Midway.

Edit: I should point out that I'm exaggerating for effect.
 
[quote name='A Happy Panda']The EA Sports brand is still very much the prize[/QUOTE]
That may be so, but Mass Effect 2 is the priiiiiiiiiiiize.
 
This doesn't affect me one bit, since the last game I bought from EA at full price was the shitfest known as Mercenaries 2.

The only redeeming part of that game was the cheat codes that allowed you limitless nuclear strikes with which you could level entire cities in the game.

Otherwise, the game was a glitchy mess and a horrible followup to the original.
 
[quote name='toxicinzanity']i dont buy sports games so it doesnt bother me but..... in all fairness ea is just trying to recoup the cost of running there servers[/QUOTE]

i don't even understand why they use their own servers. They're very unstable compared to your standard Xbox Live games.
 
[quote name='Matt Young']i don't even understand why they use their own servers. They're very unstable compared to your standard Xbox Live games.[/QUOTE]

So they can turn them off and push people to buy the new games within the same series.
 
If developers would make their fucking games BETTER then people would not sell them or trade them in the first place, thus eliminating the used game market altogether.
 
I actually think this is a GREAT idea and if they were to take it further with pricing. Say $45 for Single Player only and to play online you have to pay $15 or buy the full game for $60. That way those that just want to play through U2's single player can do so at a lower cost. ect. ect. And if you ever decide down the road that you want to check out the MP, you pay a little extra.

I'd buy a Single Player only Bioshock 2 at $15-20 cheaper.
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']I actually think this is a GREAT idea and if they were to take it further with pricing. Say $45 for Single Player only and to play online you have to pay $15 or buy the full game for $60. That way those that just want to play through U2's single player can do so at a lower cost. ect. ect. And if you ever decide down the road that you want to check out the MP, you pay a little extra.

I'd buy a Single Player only Bioshock 2 at $15-20 cheaper.[/QUOTE]

HA! HA! You don't actually think that any of these big publishers will lower prices now do you? They'll just keep the prices the same and still charge you for the extras.
 
[quote name='n4styn4t3']If developers would make their fucking games BETTER then people would not sell them or trade them in the first place, thus eliminating the used game market altogether.[/QUOTE]

Surely you jest.
 
[quote name='n4styn4t3']If developers would make their fucking games BETTER then people would not sell them or trade them in the first place, thus eliminating the used game market altogether.[/QUOTE]
:applause: I rarely get rid of my games unless I got them cheap to begin with and there's a promo going on that gets me most of my money/credit back.

But some games are just deplorable in how glitchy they are(Mercenaries 2, for example). That game was worth exactly $5-10 and not much more, though it was only worth that for the aforementioned cheat codes.;)
[quote name='DarkNessBear']I actually think this is a GREAT idea and if they were to take it further with pricing. Say $45 for Single Player only and to play online you have to pay $15 or buy the full game for $60. That way those that just want to play through U2's single player can do so at a lower cost. ect. ect. And if you ever decide down the road that you want to check out the MP, you pay a little extra.

I'd buy a Single Player only Bioshock 2 at $15-20 cheaper.[/QUOTE]
:applause:People seem too focused on whether or not a game has multiplayer before they even see what the single player is like in a game.

Personally, I used to go around doing alot of the same stuff I do in multiplayer now in GTA IV in the single player of the prior GTA games, so aside from Deathmatch the multiplayer has been pretty useless to me(though Free Mode w/o cops on is insanely fun).
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']I actually think this is a GREAT idea and if they were to take it further with pricing. Say $45 for Single Player only and to play online you have to pay $15 or buy the full game for $60. That way those that just want to play through U2's single player can do so at a lower cost. ect. ect. And if you ever decide down the road that you want to check out the MP, you pay a little extra.

I'd buy a Single Player only Bioshock 2 at $15-20 cheaper.[/QUOTE]
Your options are to buy new and sell your code or buy used. You get it cheaper up front when it's used and can pay for the code if you decide that you want to play online. The publishers won't sell their games for cheaper if you don't want to use certain parts of the game.
 
Yup. Before long you'll need $5-$10 codes for content regardless if you bought the game new or not. Only a matter of time.

Sadly this is probably the last generation I purchase a gaming console.
 
[quote name='TLPRIME']Yup. Before long you'll need $5-$10 codes for content regardless if you bought the game new or not. Only a matter of time.

Sadly this is probably the last generation I purchase a gaming console.[/QUOTE]

You mean day 1 DLC that stuff already on the disc?
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']I actually think this is a GREAT idea and if they were to take it further with pricing. Say $45 for Single Player only and to play online you have to pay $15 or buy the full game for $60. That way those that just want to play through U2's single player can do so at a lower cost. ect. ect. And if you ever decide down the road that you want to check out the MP, you pay a little extra.

I'd buy a Single Player only Bioshock 2 at $15-20 cheaper.[/QUOTE]

I personally think we will see this a lot in the future. Companies like Bungie put a lot of work into their multi-player hoppers and they don't get any of the money from the online service that keeps people playing their games. These companies aren't dumb, they know they deserve some of that money and its only a matter of time before they figure out how they can get it from us.
 
[quote name='hufferstl']I personally think we will see this a lot in the future. Companies like Bungie put a lot of work into their multi-player hoppers and they don't get any of the money from the online service that keeps people playing their games. These companies aren't dumb, they know they deserve some of that money and its only a matter of time before they figure out how they can get it from us.[/QUOTE]

What does the work Bungie puts into multi-player have to do with anything? People are still playing games for the Atari 2600 and NES. It shouldn't matter whether it is online or off. Bungie releases a set amount of content and then players utilize a peer-to-peer match making service (with a subscription fee no less) to play that content online. Any new content (map packs) costs money.
 
paddlefoot: They change their hoppers every weekend, maintain stats servers, house screenshots, even render movies now. They have even released minor updates to their games to fix balance issues(things that couldn't be fixed before release to the public). I am only talking about multiplayer(online) games, so the 2600 and NES arguments don't hold. If you play single player or local LAN, they of course you shouldn't have to pay more to keep playing.
 
couple of points. Anybody who pays full price for a new videogame anymore is just flat out stupid. The majority of new games going on sale within a month of release is like 90 percent of all of them.

2. The Majority of new games, especially AAA Titles are coming out with so many bonuses to buy them new and on release date it is better than ever. Amazon has gift cards and gaming credits for at the very least 80 percent of all the great games that have come out since last fall and going into the holiday 2010. RDR just came with a 20 dollar gift card, Madden 2011, Halo Reach are both coming out with 20 gift cards. Every other AAA title is coming with a 10-20 gaming credit or 20 gift card. Toys R Us, Walmart, Gamestop and others are following suit. Amazon also usually sells their game 5-7 dollars under the MSRP on pre orders. Combine that with free shipping and in most states no tax.


Those incentives just kill off to me buying a game used at gamestop for 50-55 if you have the Edge Card. Same thing with Amazon or Ebay. The only time I ever buy a used game is when it's a year or two old and I didn't have the chance to play it when it came out or the desire to. That is when you can get great games for $15 bucks.


I tried going onto IGN boards to read about it but I had to stop due to the pure stupidity of 90 percent of the board. One person was complaining that these companies are greedy and that he is poor and can only afford to buy a couple of games a year. Last time I checked, gaming is a luxury and a hobby. Not a god given right. These companies are in business to make us happy but make money at the same time. If they aren't making money, they go out of business.
 
[quote name='wildcpac']couple of points. Anybody who pays full price for a new videogame anymore is just flat out stupid. The majority of new games going on sale within a month of release is like 90 percent of all of them.

2. The Majority of new games, especially AAA Titles are coming out with so many bonuses to buy them new and on release date it is better than ever. Amazon has gift cards and gaming credits for at the very least 80 percent of all the great games that have come out since last fall and going into the holiday 2010. RDR just came with a 20 dollar gift card, Madden 2011, Halo Reach are both coming out with 20 gift cards. Every other AAA title is coming with a 10-20 gaming credit or 20 gift card. Toys R Us, Walmart, Gamestop and others are following suit. Amazon also usually sells their game 5-7 dollars under the MSRP on pre orders. Combine that with free shipping and in most states no tax.


Those incentives just kill off to me buying a game used at gamestop for 50-55 if you have the Edge Card. Same thing with Amazon or Ebay. The only time I ever buy a used game is when it's a year or two old and I didn't have the chance to play it when it came out or the desire to. That is when you can get great games for $15 bucks.


I tried going onto IGN boards to read about it but I had to stop due to the pure stupidity of 90 percent of the board. One person was complaining that these companies are greedy and that he is poor and can only afford to buy a couple of games a year. Last time I checked, gaming is a luxury and a hobby. Not a god given right. These companies are in business to make us happy but make money at the same time. If they aren't making money, they go out of business.[/QUOTE]

See. Lesson learned. Never go to the IGN boards.
 
[quote name='hufferstl']paddlefoot: They change their hoppers every weekend, maintain stats servers, house screenshots, even render movies now. They have even released minor updates to their games to fix balance issues(things that couldn't be fixed before release to the public). I am only talking about multiplayer(online) games, so the 2600 and NES arguments don't hold. If you play single player or local LAN, they of course you shouldn't have to pay more to keep playing.[/QUOTE]

Didn't know about Bungie's constant improvements (won't play Halo again until Reach), good to know. Though in the end it will be the publisher who decides the cost of multiplayer. Microsoft is publishing all of their games (for now) and we do pay for live. But the concept of charging extra for services that other developers don't offer is something I don't have an issue with.

[quote name='wildcpac']couple of points. Anybody who pays full price for a new videogame anymore is just flat out stupid. The majority of new games going on sale within a month of release is like 90 percent of all of them.

2. The Majority of new games, especially AAA Titles are coming out with so many bonuses to buy them new and on release date it is better than ever. Amazon has gift cards and gaming credits for at the very least 80 percent of all the great games that have come out since last fall and going into the holiday 2010. RDR just came with a 20 dollar gift card, Madden 2011, Halo Reach are both coming out with 20 gift cards. Every other AAA title is coming with a 10-20 gaming credit or 20 gift card. Toys R Us, Walmart, Gamestop and others are following suit. Amazon also usually sells their game 5-7 dollars under the MSRP on pre orders. Combine that with free shipping and in most states no tax.


Those incentives just kill off to me buying a game used at gamestop for 50-55 if you have the Edge Card. Same thing with Amazon or Ebay. The only time I ever buy a used game is when it's a year or two old and I didn't have the chance to play it when it came out or the desire to. That is when you can get great games for $15 bucks.


I tried going onto IGN boards to read about it but I had to stop due to the pure stupidity of 90 percent of the board. One person was complaining that these companies are greedy and that he is poor and can only afford to buy a couple of games a year. Last time I checked, gaming is a luxury and a hobby. Not a god given right. These companies are in business to make us happy but make money at the same time. If they aren't making money, they go out of business.[/QUOTE]

I buy a lot of games new and a lot of the games I buy used are inexpensive rebuys, so it doesn't bother me from that standpoint either. Heck, from EA within the last year I purchased (new) L4D2, Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age Origins, Dragon Age Origins Awakening, Brutal Legend, and BFBC2.

The only reasons it bothers (again of the top of my head)

1. It is a hassle not being to enter the code via live and have to go through the whole EA account thing.
2. I don't really feel like going through the hassle if I buy a game used several years after release because it isn't available new and need to purchase additional content, or worse it isn't available because EA shut down the servers or everybody has moved on to the newest console).
3. I think it is a poor decision for publishers to punish consumers in their war on used games (and piracy) and could see it ending badly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The only people being punished are those who aren't giving money to the developers. Why should developers cater to those who do not give them money?


I like how you use the term consumers when it is really leaches/parasites. I have no problems with buy who buy used games, I own a couple of used games. I personally do not expect a full game if I were to buy it used because I didn't give money to the person who created the item. I do have problems that developers do not see a percentage of used sales and that Gamestop can and does make profit 2, 3, 4 times off of Game from when it is New to Used.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']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]

Publishers and developers didn't start actively trying to subvert used sales until development costs got out of control. So what about back in the early PS2 days and prior? Games were still $50 back then. Games were $50 back when Funcoland, EBgames, Babbages, and Software Etc. were around selling NES games. Compact Discs were much cheaper than cartridges, but like the music industry the games industry chose to charge the same $50 a game (in music they had the balls to charge more). New games had such a high price point back then that used retailers thrived and eventually merged into one huge corporation. This has only happened in the video games industry. Hell, gamestop tried to do it with movies and gave up because it wasn't worth it.


[quote name='wildcpac']The only people being punished are those who aren't giving money to the developers. Why should developers cater to those who do not give them money?


I like how you use the term consumers when it is really leaches/parasites. I have no problems with buy who buy used games, I own a couple of used games. I personally do not expect a full game if I were to buy it used because I didn't give money to the person who created the item. I do have problems that developers do not see a percentage of used sales and that Gamestop can and does make profit 2, 3, 4 times off of Game from when it is New to Used.[/QUOTE]

And I like how you use the word developers when it is really publishers like EA and THQ, as I highly doubt developers would get more money. Giving a customer incentive is one thing, crippling a product is something entirely different. Why should people not expect to get the same game used? It has been that way for going over 35 years and no EULA is going to change that fact. Gamestop has almost 4500 stores in the U.S. and learned to play used games like the stock market. Nothing is stopping publishers from being like auto manufacturers and offering buyback programs towards new games. But no, they just continue to bitch and moan about how used game sales are killing the industry.

I also like how publishers are specifically targeting online play.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are a couple of major differences for videogames now and then. Music and voice acting. Games pre PS2 did not have voice acting or licensed music. That alone is going to eat up a good portion of money. Are we really going to complain about the prices of games now? They are 60 this generation. They were 50 for 10 years from PS1-PS2. They were 50 on the Genesis and some Nintendo games. So over the majority of the past 25 years games were around 50 bucks and finally went up 10 dollars to 60. Should I mention how much Super Nintendo and N64 games were going between 60-70 dollars? So games this generation went up 10 bucks compared to 20 plus years ago. Should we mention how much the cost of everything else has gone up more than 20 percent in the last 25 years?

Music CD's cost more than videogames? Since when? I know music cd's at some places were up to 25 dollars back in the mid to late 90's but never more. I hate to break it to you but there have been Music/DVD places like Gamestop. CD Warehouse was one and there are several places where you can trade in used DVD"s. Block Buster, FYE among others. There are a couple of reasons why the CD/ DVD versions never really worked compared to Gamestop.

1. People can get music legally and illegally online that there was no need to buy used CD's. A person can borrow a friends CD and just legally put that onto their Ipod and Itunes. You cannot do that with video games.

2. DVD's. The majority of people rent dvd's. How many people go out and buy dvds? And if they do how often do they watch it more than twice? It's the biggest waste of money. Even used dvd's are a waste of money. For the cost of a couple of used DVD's from Block Buster or off of Amazon one can get Netflix 3 out at time and watch 24 movies during the month.



Here is the big reason why developers and producers are doing it this generation. 1 is online play, 2 is because the majority of people have their systems hooked up to the net and the systems have Hard Drives. This as minimal to non existant in previous generations.


How is a person who buys a used game a Customer of EA? EA didn't see a penny from that "customer" but the customer should have full rights and be able to use EA services that cost EA money? Last time I checked, EA is a company and why should they lose even a penny on someone who doesn't pay them for their service?


Also, lets not compare music, movies and tv to video games. Musicians are able to make money off of ticket sales, merchandise sales, radio, itunes, Amazon, cd sales, single sales, soundtracks (TV, Videogames, Movies, commercials) etc etc etc etc etc. Movies are able to make money off of merchandise, ticket sales, dvd sales, rentals, TV and Cable, etc etc etc etc. TV shows are able to make money off of merchandise, ratings, sponsors, dvd sales and rentals.

How do videogames make money? New Sales, some merchandise and to a lesser extent rentals.
 
[quote name='wildcpac']There are a couple of major differences for videogames now and then. Music and voice acting. Games pre PS2 did not have voice acting or licensed music. That alone is going to eat up a good portion of money. Are we really going to complain about the prices of games now? They are 60 this generation. They were 50 for 10 years from PS1-PS2. They were 50 on the Genesis and some Nintendo games. So over the majority of the past 25 years games were around 50 bucks and finally went up 10 dollars to 60. Should I mention how much Super Nintendo and N64 games were going between 60-70 dollars? So games this generation went up 10 bucks compared to 20 plus years ago. Should we mention how much the cost of everything else has gone up more than 20 percent in the last 25 years?

Music CD's cost more than videogames? Since when? I know music cd's at some places were up to 25 dollars back in the mid to late 90's but never more. I hate to break it to you but there have been Music/DVD places like Gamestop. CD Warehouse was one and there are several places where you can trade in used DVD"s. Block Buster, FYE among others. There are a couple of reasons why the CD/ DVD versions never really worked compared to Gamestop.

1. People can get music legally and illegally online that there was no need to buy used CD's. A person can borrow a friends CD and just legally put that onto their Ipod and Itunes. You cannot do that with video games.

2. DVD's. The majority of people rent dvd's. How many people go out and buy dvds? And if they do how often do they watch it more than twice? It's the biggest waste of money. Even used dvd's are a waste of money. For the cost of a couple of used DVD's from Block Buster or off of Amazon one can get Netflix 3 out at time and watch 24 movies during the month.



Here is the big reason why developers and producers are doing it this generation. 1 is online play, 2 is because the majority of people have their systems hooked up to the net and the systems have Hard Drives. This as minimal to non existant in previous generations.


How is a person who buys a used game a Customer of EA? EA didn't see a penny from that "customer" but the customer should have full rights and be able to use EA services that cost EA money? Last time I checked, EA is a company and why should they lose even a penny on someone who doesn't pay them for their service?


Also, lets not compare music, movies and tv to video games. Musicians are able to make money off of ticket sales, merchandise sales, radio, itunes, Amazon, cd sales, single sales, soundtracks (TV, Videogames, Movies, commercials) etc etc etc etc etc. Movies are able to make money off of merchandise, ticket sales, dvd sales, rentals, TV and Cable, etc etc etc etc. TV shows are able to make money off of merchandise, ratings, sponsors, dvd sales and rentals.

How do videogames make money? New Sales, some merchandise and to a lesser extent rentals.[/QUOTE]

For the online play, I would argue that EA doesn't lose any money from a person buying a game used (not from bandwidth anyway). Unless somehow the person who bought the game new can still play it online without a copy. I would like to think First Sale Doctrine would win out for me as a consumer.

My mention of compact discs costing more is a reference to cassettes costing less than a CD and how games moving to disc from cart, while not increasing in price, did stay the same.

And the comparison to other forms of multimedia entertainment is all we have to go on, that is why I made it. Arguing that it is a tangible good doesn't seem to hold any weight, so what else is there?

Finally, I don't disagree with every point you make, as the industry (well, EA) can't survive at this rate. I also have no problem with what EA is doing.

I'll also add a paraphrase of a quote from neogaf in reference to when publishers bitch and moan "I'll show remorse for publishers and developers losing out on used game sales when they show remorse for selling me a terrible game."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='wildcpac']

How do videogames make money? New Sales, some merchandise and to a lesser extent rentals.[/QUOTE]

You forgot to mention downloable content. A developer can sell a used game yet still make money off this. The Stimulus Package from Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 had millions of downloads at $15 a pop.
 
[quote name='paddlefoot']Publishers and developers didn't start actively trying to subvert used sales until development costs got out of control. So what about back in the early PS2 days and prior? Games were still $50 back then. Games were $50 back when Funcoland, EBgames, Babbages, and Software Etc. were around selling NES games. Compact Discs were much cheaper than cartridges, but like the music industry the games industry chose to charge the same $50 a game (in music they had the balls to charge more). New games had such a high price point back then that used retailers thrived and eventually merged into one huge corporation. This has only happened in the video games industry. Hell, gamestop tried to do it with movies and gave up because it wasn't worth it.[/QUOTE]
Even though I was too young to really pay attention to what anything cost then, I really doubt that $50 was the average price of NES/SNES/Genesis era games since I see a lot of comments about how certain games regularly went for $80-$90 at times, so at least the prices have gotten smaller and more stable (minus LEs and bundles) as things have matured in the past two generations. Prices did generally drop when CD-based consoles became the norm as PS1 games were $50 compared to the $70 N64 games that were part of the reason that the PS1 did better. The problem then became the fact that development costs rose dramatically over the next two generations. Just because the storage medium got cheaper, the cost to make the game that's on it got big enough that they weren't going to lower the price to be nice.

The bigger issue that you gloss over is that the difference between what used CD shops give for CDs and then the price they resell them for is small enough that nobody's really going to become huge off of a few bucks a disc. GameStop regularly buys newer games for about $20 or so and then turns around to sell that same game for about $50, a much bigger difference that leads to a lot of profit. The price ceiling for both industries is so different that it could only happen for games.

Either way, I said earlier that the pricing is due to the lack of alternate revenue streams for the games industry until this generation while the music and movie industries have several different ways to get money from the consumers for the same product.
 
[quote name='wildcpac']The only people being punished are those who aren't giving money to the developers. Why should developers cater to those who do not give them money?


I like how you use the term consumers when it is really leaches/parasites. I have no problems with buy who buy used games, I own a couple of used games. I personally do not expect a full game if I were to buy it used because I didn't give money to the person who created the item. I do have problems that developers do not see a percentage of used sales and that Gamestop can and does make profit 2, 3, 4 times off of Game from when it is New to Used.[/QUOTE]
I expect to have the same functionality in any game I buy, no matter how I buy it(new or used). It's been that way for decades, so why change it now?

Because the publishers/developers are losing out money to the used market? Why should they profit from the used market on top of what they made for selling the games when they were new?

If they want to make money off of the used market like they do on the new games without gimping their own games for those who are frugal and buy used, then get into the used game market and sell used copies of your own games on your own website and in your own stores.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up and be happy you're at least making the initial sales for the new copies.
 
[quote name='James161324']I don't like it. But it really doesn't matter to me right now. I have no plan on wasting my money on sports games this year.[/QUOTE]

You do realize this will expand beyond sports games and become an industry standard, right? There's no way everyone else is going to pass up a revenue opportunity.

Also, I hope the supporters are ok with places such as Goozex, Glyde, and even the trading forum here on CAG being crippled by this...it's not simply "lol GS is going outta business."

Most importantly, this as another step towards complete digital distribution. Look around--we've got DLC add-ons (which brings up the entirely different debate of whether some content should have been included day one), games on demand, and now codes for unlocking features. I've got no problem with publishers getting their fair cut, but it's pretty ironic that there are so many supporters of this practice when at the same time we all cry foul at what Sony did with the PSP Go. We're going down that road, except this time with stepping stones rather than giant leap.
 
I hate the idea of implementing multiplayer like this, but I see where EA is coming from.

It's like if you make lemonade for a living and someone buys lemonade from you, and sells it to another lemonade stand who sells that to other people and you see none of the profit from that other lemonade stand who is selling your drink.

What would you do in that situation?
 
People have been getting upset over this, but the fact is this was decided a long time ago with XBOX Live. This is just the inevitable playing out of that beginning.

As others have said this really only hurts NEW buyers(ironically) since your games take an automatic hit now in the resale value.Gamestop will just lower it's used prices for sale and trade(same exact profit for GS and same total cost for the used buyer) to reflect the added cost of the online code.

The only good I see from this is now pirates will at least have to pay something to the games companies if they wan to play online.
 
[quote name='demond dave']People have been getting upset over this, but the fact is this was decided a long time ago with XBOX Live. This is just the inevitable playing out of that beginning.

As others have said this really only hurts NEW buyers(ironically) since your games take an automatic hit now in the resale value.Gamestop will just lower it's used prices for sale and trade(same exact profit for GS and same total cost for the used buyer) to reflect the added cost of the online code.

The only good I see from this is now pirates will at least have to pay something to the games companies if they wan to play online.[/QUOTE]

most of the pirates will goto Blockbuster and other rental stores and steal the code out of the box they leave on the shelf come release day
 
[quote name='bubbafett4hire']most of the pirates will goto Blockbuster and other rental stores and steal the code out of the box they leave on the shelf come release day[/QUOTE]

Redbox and Netflix don't have cases.
 
[quote name='demond dave']As others have said this really only hurts NEW buyers(ironically) since your games take an automatic hit now in the resale value.Gamestop will just lower it's used prices for sale and trade(same exact profit for GS and same total cost for the used buyer) to reflect the added cost of the online code.[/QUOTE]

That is far from a given. Gamespot specifically commented on their most recent earnings call that EA's project $10 has had zero impact on their business. No change in prices. No change in sales / trade ins.
 
[quote name='jkanownik']Redbox and Netflix don't have cases.[/QUOTE]

Netflix does not offer video games for rental, and very few Redboxes do.
 
[quote name='Matt Young']Netflix does not offer video games for rental, and very few Redboxes do.[/QUOTE]

Once Blockbuster follows Hollywood they are all that is left.
 
[quote name='jkanownik']Once Blockbuster follows Hollywood they are all that is left.[/QUOTE]

we'll be lucky if we see a Blockbuster in another 2 yrs. I know they were supposed to be closing over 100 of their 1500 stores across the country not surprising when thier stock closed today at .34 cents
 
This makes sense from a business point of view and I'm not really opposed to it to be completely honest. All it really means to me is that I won't be buying their games if they produce mediocre product. Actually, they are going to have to come up with stellar product to earn my money.

This is referring to the multiplayer aspect. Now if they start pushing this model with full blown levels of single player (which will inevitably happen), that's a much bigger problem.
 
Microsoft might be doing the "multiplayer token" thing with Crackdown 2. One of the hosts of the podcast, Orange Lounge Radio, works for some distributor and he said that the listing for Crackdown 2 mentioned something about a code/token/whatever. Not confirmed that it's a Project $10-type thing, but it could be.
 
I have a genuine question: When you buy games new at clearance prices at Target or Best Buy, do developers make any money from those sales?
 
[quote name='thirdrose']I have a genuine question: When you buy games new at clearance prices at Target or Best Buy, do developers make any money from those sales?[/QUOTE]

Yes because these stores buy the games at the normal price. The store themselves put it on clearance to get rid of stock that is not moving.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']Yes because these stores buy the games at the normal price. The store themselves put it on clearance to get rid of stock that is not moving.[/QUOTE]

Oh cool thanks! Makes me feel a bit better about not buying some games right as they release.
 
All this does is give them a license to make shitty games. If most people like their sports games they keep them until the new version comes out. Make better games and have good DLC and people would keep their games. But hey that's Ea for you they don't give a shit about their customers.
 
[quote name='flufflogic']I hate the idea of implementing multiplayer like this, but I see where EA is coming from.

It's like if you make lemonade for a living and someone buys lemonade from you, and sells it to another lemonade stand who sells that to other people and you see none of the profit from that other lemonade stand who is selling your drink.

What would you do in that situation?[/QUOTE]
What the hell are talking about? You sold the lemonade for the price you wanted the person that bought it can do anything they want with it. If they pour it out can they come back and ask you for another because they didn't drink it?
 
[quote name='jkanownik']That is far from a given. Gamespot specifically commented on their most recent earnings call that EA's project $10 has had zero impact on their business. 'NO CHANGE IN PRICES". No change in sales / trade ins.[/QUOTE]

^which would seem to me to be bizzare:who would buy a used game for $55 and have to buy the extra $10 code for online when they could just buy a new copy for $60?I guess maybe if you planned not to play online that would make sense,but still.Online is a huge part of gaming this gen.

As I posted,the logical thing to me would be for GS to lower it's used price to $45 AND lower the trade in credit by $10(say from $30 to $20 for example).That way the used buyer pays the exact same total amount and GS gets the exact same profit.The new buyer gets hosed though on his trade in value.
 
[quote name='bubbafett4hire']most of the pirates will goto Blockbuster and other rental stores and steal the code out of the box they leave on the shelf come release day[/QUOTE]

My local movie gallery would take out the extra codes and stuff before they put it on the shelf.I always wondered what they did with them?Probably sold them on ebay or something.

Sure they could go to best buy or walmart and rip out the codes,but I'd have to think that would be pretty limited.So the idea that pirates will at least have to pay a little something makes me (and probably others) feel less like chumps for actually buying our games and supporting the industry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top