PDA

View Full Version : EA Sports Locks Out Multiplayer Modes On Used Sales


Majik
05-11-2010, 03:11 PM
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/108/1088621p1.html

Even more reason to hate EA and their piss poor games (battlefield is pretty good though :wiggle:)

Doggcow
05-11-2010, 03:35 PM
They're just trying to encourage new sales.

I guarantee the Used Sales prices will reflect having to buy the "Online" pack anyway.

Same as all the other games are doing now, Mass Effect 2 did it, many others will too.

Companies make no money from used sales.

OP hates capitalism.

Flex Gunmetal
05-11-2010, 03:42 PM
They're just trying to encourage new sales.

I guarantee the Used Sales prices will reflect having to buy the "Online" pack anyway.

Same as all the other games are doing now, Mass Effect 2 did it, many others will too.

Companies make no money from used sales.

OP hates capitalism.

ME2 was multiplayer?

Ea are assholes, period. I hope no one follows suit.

Flex Gunmetal
05-11-2010, 03:46 PM
Why should companies make money off of used sales? A unit moved is a unit moved. Maybe when my customers sell the cars we've sold them we should demand commision?

PRBronco
05-11-2010, 03:48 PM
Joke's on them, I hate interacting with other people!

Hercules Rockefeller
05-11-2010, 03:50 PM
Lame.

The thing that bugs me more is the exclusive DLC on games if you pre-order through Gamestop.

Flex Gunmetal
05-11-2010, 03:56 PM
oh and coorperate greed and capitalism aren't the same thing

UberBroncoMan
05-11-2010, 04:12 PM
DLC really, really, pisses me off. Too bad it's the future. I mean I like it and all, but some of the prices are ridiculous. The $7 Mass Effect 2 DLC being a great example. They also split the player base up. For instance you have a map-pack and 20% of the population buy it. Well that means you are only able to play those maps with 20% of the population. It divides everyone up.

BTW, if you guys like used games, heh.

The future isn't going to have hard copies anymore to sell/trade to GameStop etc. It's going to have consoles with only digital distribution.

orange&blue87
05-11-2010, 04:20 PM
I just wish they would break their sports games into two different sales... one for online only and one for a better franchise mode for those that don't usually play against anyone. With what they have done the past few seasons, namely on Madden, it has been half-assed for both.

I guess this will also deter people from just renting the game for a short period and then getting tired of playing it, and those who do that will also see a less than stellar return when they sell a game back.

Lolad
05-11-2010, 04:21 PM
WoW started all of this. The success and amount of money that game has generated is unbelievable. Who would have thought millions of people would buy a game for full price then pay $15/month just to stay online.

They have the model, people are willing to spend money monthly so why not this.

UberBroncoMan
05-11-2010, 04:28 PM
WoW started all of this. The success and amount of money that game has generated is unbelievable. Who would have thought millions of people would buy a game for full price then pay $15/month just to stay online.

They have the model, people are willing to spend money monthly so why not this.

Nah. WoW didn't start it. The $15 a month thing was going on years before WoW. WoW is just the one that really, really, went mainstream. EverQuest was charging people monthly years before WoW.

DLC is different than an MMO too.

Downloadable Content can be on a single player game. What started this was consoles finally being hooked up to the internet, and the additions of hard drives to them.

The big issue with DLC is when companies purposely hold content out of the main game you spend $50-60 on so they can package it as DLC a few months later to make extra money.

Kaylore
05-11-2010, 04:35 PM
There was an article on Game Informer recently discussing this. Historically games have been multiplayer going back thousands of years. It took video games to create a solo experience. People crave the connection with others and that's where the market is going.

Broncos_OTM
05-11-2010, 04:36 PM
what does this mean for gamefly and those that rent games kinda like netflicks

HEAV
05-11-2010, 04:36 PM
Fruck'n EA... try making a decent NFL sim game...instead of trying to control the market with your power.



I hate Madden...even though I bought it last year, I sold it after a few months on the On-line bullcrap gamplay.

I play 2k All-Pro with my custom Broncos team.

But damn'it I'm sure I'll purchase the new Madden... it's like mind control plud my friend across the country like to play.

UberBroncoMan
05-11-2010, 04:40 PM
what does this mean for gamefly and those that rent games kinda like netflicks

You can get a 7 day pass for online use free of charge. Probably can use that if you rent.

RonDaChamp24
05-11-2010, 04:59 PM
This doesn't really bother me because I rarely buy used games, but I can definitely see how it would piss some people off.

ZachKC
05-11-2010, 05:04 PM
Why should companies make money off of used sales? A unit moved is a unit moved. Maybe when my customers sell the cars we've sold them we should demand commision?

Why shouldn't they if they have the chance?

zms325i
05-11-2010, 05:16 PM
Why should companies make money off of used sales? A unit moved is a unit moved. Maybe when my customers sell the cars we've sold them we should demand commision?

We do. You just don't know about it.

Killericon
05-11-2010, 06:09 PM
I always buy sports games right when they come out, and I play franchise mode 99% of the time, but this is pure evil.

Lolad
05-11-2010, 07:06 PM
Nah. WoW didn't start it. The $15 a month thing was going on years before WoW. WoW is just the one that really, really, went mainstream. EverQuest was charging people monthly years before WoW.

DLC is different than an MMO too.

Downloadable Content can be on a single player game. What started this was consoles finally being hooked up to the internet, and the additions of hard drives to them.

The big issue with DLC is when companies purposely hold content out of the main game you spend $50-60 on so they can package it as DLC a few months later to make extra money.

I think DLC will only get worse as the time goes on. I think one game even had as much as 4-5 DLC's released within a year. As more and more gamers look for a multiplayer experience I could see them charging an additional fee the publisher just to play on their dedicated servers.

Killericon
05-11-2010, 07:58 PM
I think DLC will only get worse as the time goes on. I think one game even had as much as 4-5 DLC's released within a year. As more and more gamers look for a multiplayer experience I could see them charging an additional fee the publisher just to play on their dedicated servers.

DLC replaces expansion packs. This is all the same song over again.

gtown
05-11-2010, 08:07 PM
Looks like I am gonna have to quit video games with a multiplayer aspect. The discount on used games is pretty hefty and the games themselves are pretty disposable once you beat them.

I think this is a bit underhanded, but then again it is EA, the unmitigated douchebag of video games. After repackaging Madden and other sports franchises year after year with only minor upgrades, they deserve lower profits.

HEAV
05-11-2010, 08:22 PM
Only a matter of time before EA starts charging for title updates and bug fixes! Madden has had some serious bugs the past 2 years, that required multiple title updates.

RhymesayersDU
05-11-2010, 08:39 PM
Only a matter of time before EA starts charging for title updates and bug fixes! Madden has had some serious bugs the past 2 years, that required multiple title updates.

Yet, you still buy it, as you stated earlier. This is the problem. This is why I rarely bitch about EA/Madden. Because I know I'm part of the problem (I buy it yearly) as somebody who buys the game no matter how good or bad.

If people dislike EA or whatever, they should stop buying the games. I'm not on EA's side per se, but I'm one of the guys who will always buy Madden and Tiger Woods year after year. I'm a sucker along with a lot of people.

HEAV
05-11-2010, 08:50 PM
Yet, you still buy it, as you stated earlier. This is the problem. This is why I rarely b**** about EA/Madden. Because I know I'm part of the problem (I buy it yearly) as somebody who buys the game no matter how good or bad.

If people dislike EA or whatever, they should stop buying the games. I'm not on EA's side per se, but I'm one of the guys who will always buy Madden and Tiger Woods year after year. I'm a sucker along with a lot of people.


It's just not having any other option. It's the only NFL football game available. What choice do we have?! That's what drives me nuts.

Doggcow
05-11-2010, 09:36 PM
ME2 was multiplayer?

Ea are a-holes, period. I hope no one follows suit.

MW2 ****ed everyone sideways on the expansion pack dude. Those maps were all finished before initial release. Plus, I bet they charged more for that ($20) than the online "unlock" is for Madden anyway.

So what's your point?

Doggcow
05-11-2010, 09:41 PM
Looks like I am gonna have to quit video games with a multiplayer aspect. The discount on used games is pretty hefty and the games themselves are pretty disposable once you beat them.

You can STILL PLAY MULTIPLAYER. You just likely have to pay a $5-10 fee.

BTW, everyone bitching about this, just go buy your game on Ebay for like $20 off cover price and get over it.

I don't buy very many games, I rent a lot, so this affects me more than many people.

I also think 2k5 was the best Football game ever made.

However, If I could make $200,000 a year instead of $125,000 a year, you damn well better believe I'd take the bump. Just like all of you would.

extralife
05-11-2010, 09:43 PM
...so you like paying extra money out of some misguided corporate altruism disguised as capitalist fervor?

Doggcow
05-11-2010, 09:49 PM
...so you like paying extra money out of some misguided corporate altruism disguised as capitalist fervor?

I always buy Madden new anyway. I could care less, in this instance.

I get hundreds of hours of gameplay out of the game (Over 2000 games played in the last 2 years 80%+ win percentage too, Only as the Broncos), and I believe that the cost per hour of entertainment is way higher than any other form there is.

I believe last year they actually made a better product than anyone has in a while. The multiplayer franchise mode was great, they also had nearly weekly updates (which costs the company more, and is a newer thing).

I'll gladly pay $10 for weekly, hell even monthly updates, the good work on bug fixes, and improved server stability.

UberBroncoMan
05-11-2010, 09:49 PM
You can STILL PLAY MULTIPLAYER. You just likely have to pay a $5-10 fee.

BTW, everyone b****ing about this, just go buy your game on Ebay for like $20 off cover price and get over it.

I don't buy very many games, I rent a lot, so this affects me more than many people.

I also think 2k5 was the best Football game ever made.

However, If I could make $200,000 a year instead of $125,000 a year, you damn well better believe I'd take the bump. Just like all of you would.

It's actually amazing how much better 2k5 is in so many areas over a game that's 5 years older (soon to be 6). Rather pathetic too, but that's what happens when you have no competition.

Doggcow
05-11-2010, 09:53 PM
It's actually amazing how much better 2k5 is in so many areas over a game that's 5 years older (soon to be 6). Rather pathetic too, but that's what happens when you have no competition.

Ashley Lelie and Quintin Griffen were sick.

UberBroncoMan
05-11-2010, 09:56 PM
Ashley Lelie and Quintin Griffen were sick.

Old days were crazy.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XZSefX9z9Rk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XZSefX9z9Rk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Look who the MVP of the game is lol.

orange&blue87
05-11-2010, 10:16 PM
It's actually amazing how much better 2k5 is in so many areas over a game that's 5 years older (soon to be 6). Rather pathetic too, but that's what happens when you have no competition.

Seriously... How hard would it be for EA to include trading next years draft picks when 2K did it half a decade ago. I'm half tempted to buy an old xbox and 2k5 (or find my old ones) instead of buying Madden 11. The franchise mode in 2k5 was incredible.

Then again, because Madden sucks so much, I do get more free time to devote to other more important interests.

Killericon
05-11-2010, 10:44 PM
I still enjoy Madden. I'm still going to buy it. I'm looking forward to it. Could it be better? Sure. But don't idolize 2Ksports. MLB 2k series has been mostly garbage in this generation. All Pro Football? Sucked.

Anyways, while this PARTICULAR thing is a bit dickish, it's mostly just a move against used games. DLC is replacing expansion packs. None of this is anything new.

RonDaChamp24
05-11-2010, 10:45 PM
I love Madden. Preorder it and buy it new every year. Well worth the money.

extralife
05-11-2010, 10:52 PM
None of this is anything new.

Until they start locking people out of the DLC until they pay a specific registration fee, in order to eliminate used games because, unlike in the days of expansion packs, they completely control the distribution channels. Nevermind that "DLC" is almost always code for "stuff we took out of the finished game so we could charge extra for it in a month and a half."

Killericon
05-11-2010, 11:20 PM
Until they start locking people out of the DLC until they pay a specific registration fee, in order to eliminate used games because, unlike in the days of expansion packs, they completely control the distribution channels. Nevermind that "DLC" is almost always code for "stuff we took out of the finished game so we could charge extra for it in a month and a half."

Come on, man. Sure, they usually have DLC ready to go when the game ships. So what? If the game can work on its own, then so be it.

They won't be able to lock people out of DLC. At least on the Xbox. Microsoft controls the DLC distribution, and Microsoft isn't doing this. EA can lock people out of Multiplayer(The worst part about this, hands down, is that people buying the game used won't get updated rosters), but not DLC. At least not on Xbox, and if they can't do it on Xbox, they won't everywhere else. They're looking to lock people out of the stuff that costs them money, not the stuff that makes them money.

HEAV
05-12-2010, 10:28 AM
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9AnG6gYM2ag&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9AnG6gYM2ag&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-12-2010, 10:31 AM
Why should companies make money off of used sales? A unit moved is a unit moved. Maybe when my customers sell the cars we've sold them we should demand commision?

This!

The OP doesn't hate capitalism. The OP hates greed. And that's what this move is. Greed.

HEAV
05-12-2010, 11:15 AM
This!

The OP doesn't hate capitalism. The OP hates greed. And that's what this move is. Greed.

EA made it's cash when the unit sold the first time. The Buyer gets a fraction of the money back when they sell the game @ Gamestop and maybe 75-80 percent when sold on Ebay. But again EA made their money from the initial sale.

This is more about EA seeing the slaes of games (Madden) fall last year.

---------
As the success of digital distribution services such as the iTunes App Store, Xbox Live and PSN continue to ask serious questions of the traditional console software sales model, EA boss john Riccitiello may just have hinted at a loss of appetitive for full-price console releases.


Today’s NPD results for North America show that Madden NFL 10 was the top selling console game for August – but Riccitiello admits that the numbers weren’t quite what he’d hoped for.

“This week, market research for August will show that year over year, the industry was down in North America – and that August sales of Madden NFL 10 are down with that trend,” the exec said in an internal note to EA employees published by Bloomberg.

“It is discouraging that one of our highest-rated and best-marketed Madden titles in years is facing strong headwinds.

“We launched Madden NFL 10, which critics and fans alike reviewed as the best Madden on this generation of consoles. In my judgment, we supported this game with one of the strongest marketing campaigns of the year. Both the game quality and marketing reflect outstanding teamwork and deep commitment to excellence.”

However, whilst Riccitiello finds doubt in the face of success regarding its console release, he has nothing but praise for EA’s increasingly impressive accomplishments in the emerging video game markets.

“Our EAi businesses, comprised of Pogo, the new EA Social group and EA Mobile, are performing well,” he enthuses.

“The Pogo Puppies social game goes live next week. On mobile, a recent analysis of the Apple App Store games show that EA is number one with the highest number of titles in the top 100 – and with the highest average price point.

“We are now five months into the fiscal year and the most important period of the year is still in front of us. Trend lines for the industry present a challenge, but our strategy and execution give me confidence.

“From here, our focus is on four priorities: great product launches, succeeding on the Nintendo Wii, continued expansion of our direct-to-consumer business, and cost control.”

Could EA be the first major global games publisher to prioritise its digital casual strategy over the full price retail console market? A year or two ago the answer would have been a concrete and indisputable ‘no’. Now? It’s become a lot harder to say

http://www.casualgaming.biz/news/29184/Is-EA-set-to-scrap-full-priced-console-releases

------

If EA wants to make more cash lower the price of games. Like back in the day when they had Head to Head competetion from 2k sports and when NFL 2k5 came out @ $19.99 and EA had to drop the Madden price tag to $29.99. The had been selling the previous year for $49.99, but the fear of losing sales to a cheaper (and better) NFL game forced then to scramble.

That was when EA tossed hundreds of millions of dollars to the NFL to be the only NFL game. Once EA had the exclusive deal the price went back to $49.99


Now the game is $59.99...now I understand that the going rate for most new titles. But soem game title debut and ten dollars less. The new Backbreaker football game is going to be $49.99.

Sadly I don't think Backbreaker will be more than a hyped up NFL blitz....

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GFqLmoCVOhA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GFqLmoCVOhA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

But still EA could make a more cash by lowering the price and selling more units!

But they would rather nickle and dime (ten bucks) people.

Doggcow
05-12-2010, 11:20 AM
If EA wants to make more cash lower the price of games. Like back in the day when they had Head to Head competetion from 2k sports and when NFL 2k5 came out @ $19.99 and EA had to drop the Madden price tag to $29.99. The had been selling the previous year for $49.99, but the fear of losing sales to a cheaper (and better) NFL game forced then to scramble.

That was when EA tossed hundreds of millions of dollars to the NFL to be the only NFL game. Once EA had the exclusive deal the price went back to $49.99


Now the game is $59.99...now I understand that the going rate for most new titles. But soem game title debut and ten dollars less. The new Backbreaker football game is going to be $49.99.

Sadly I don't think Backbreaker will be more than a hyped up NFL blitz....

But still EA could make a more cash by lowering the price and selling more units!

But they would rather nickle and dime (ten bucks) people.

EA has pretty much a set crowd that buys the game new every year anyway. I'm sure they weighed the pros-cons of lowering the price vs. this approach. If they are the money grabbers that you're calling them, at least give them credit that they are doing their research, because I GUARANTEE THEY KNOW MORE ABOUT SALES FIGURES AND THIS ISSUE THAN YOU DO.

Go buy the used copy and be happy with it. You saved $15 to $20 on it.

Would you expect a used car to be 100% of what it was when the original buyer bought it? A boat? Anything?

Video games are the only things that are still 100% of the product, when used.

Think about it please, wrap your head around that one.

Flex Gunmetal
05-12-2010, 04:09 PM
MW2 ****ed everyone sideways on the expansion pack dude. Those maps were all finished before initial release. Plus, I bet they charged more for that ($20) than the online "unlock" is for Madden anyway.

So what's your point?

Oh, well you said Mass Effect 2, not Modern Warfare 2.

You just don't get this whole greed vs capitalism thing.

Majik
05-12-2010, 05:04 PM
I feel bad for the people who buy NCAA football then trade that in for Madden when it comes out. Trade in values will drop significantly due to this.

Majik
05-12-2010, 05:25 PM
They're just trying to encourage new sales.

I guarantee the Used Sales prices will reflect having to buy the "Online" pack anyway.

Same as all the other games are doing now, Mass Effect 2 did it, many others will too.

Companies make no money from used sales.

OP hates capitalism.

:kiddingme Have you ever heard of business ethics?

HEAV
05-14-2010, 10:15 AM
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ho3jtjDnWVE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ho3jtjDnWVE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

HEAV
05-14-2010, 10:22 AM
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oN9yGq3z9JY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oN9yGq3z9JY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Doggcow
05-14-2010, 10:45 AM
:kiddingme Have you ever heard of business ethics?


eth·ics
   /ˈɛθɪks/ Show Spelled[eth-iks] Show IPA
–plural noun
1.
(used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2.
the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3.
moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4.
(usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.


Who does EA have a bigger connection/responsibility to? Their customers or their stockholders? Hell, their employees?

Seriously, there are two sides to every coin, just because you're on one side, doesn't mean you're right.

Nice attempt at an uneducated jab though.

Doggcow
05-14-2010, 10:48 AM
Oh, well you said Mass Effect 2, not Modern Warfare 2.

You just don't get this whole greed vs capitalism thing.

You quoted me fluffing MW2, which had absolutely NO correlation to my post.

I also tore down that straw-man in my rebuttal based on empirical evidence.

Result: You make a fact-less, opinion based, statement.

Killericon
05-14-2010, 11:07 AM
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oN9yGq3z9JY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oN9yGq3z9JY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

It's just a shame that game suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked.

DrFate
05-14-2010, 11:38 AM
If you don't agree with this new business practice, don't buy the game. News article came out yesterday, showing how the game industry took a huge hit recently. I'm not making a morality case on whether this practice is 'capitalism' or 'greed'. Doesn't matter. If you don't like this approach - don't send them your cash. If you don't like draconian DRM - don't send them your cash.

Buying a game is essentially an approval of their business practices.

ZachKC
05-14-2010, 10:17 PM
:kiddingme Have you ever heard of business ethics?

What is unethical about it...


This should be good.

Majik
05-15-2010, 07:42 AM
eth·ics
   /ˈɛθɪks/ Show Spelled[eth-iks] Show IPA
–plural noun
1.
(used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2.
the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3.
moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4.
(usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.


Who does EA have a bigger connection/responsibility to? Their customers or their stockholders? Hell, their employees?

Seriously, there are two sides to every coin, just because you're on one side, doesn't mean you're right.

Nice attempt at an uneducated jab though.

Nice you can look up a definition. :thumbsup: I guess I was wrong in thinking greed was an unmoral value. What was I thinking.

Arkie
05-15-2010, 08:05 AM
This!

The OP doesn't hate capitalism. The OP hates greed. And that's what this move is. Greed.

Greed is the driving force behind capitalism and socialism. The government will tax the games over and over at each point of sale too. It's not enough to just tax every level of the game's production that will be passed on to the gamer as the cost of doing business.

Flex Gunmetal
05-15-2010, 11:21 AM
You quoted me fluffing MW2, which had absolutely NO correlation to my post.

I also tore down that straw-man in my rebuttal based on empirical evidence.

Result: You make a fact-less, opinion based, statement.

lol wut?




http://i44.tinypic.com/iqx9qu.jpg

Doggcow
05-15-2010, 02:02 PM
Nice you can look up a definition. :thumbsup: I guess I was wrong in thinking greed was an unmoral value. What was I thinking.

Didn't answer my question. Nice try to deflect. I'll still be here when you can justify why customers are more important and a business is more responsible for them, than the business' stockholders and employees.

OABB
05-15-2010, 06:40 PM
Didn't answer my question. Nice try to deflect. I'll still be here when you can justify why customers are more important and a business is more responsible for them, than the business' stockholders and employees.

Mad customers= less money and stuff.

Bronco Yoda
05-15-2010, 06:41 PM
...and how many years now have I been telling you all that EA is the devil.

ZachKC
05-16-2010, 01:15 AM
EA isn't forcing anyone to part with their money.

Doggcow
05-16-2010, 11:21 AM
Mad customers= less money and stuff.

Not necessarily. Like I said before. I guarantee EA did a market analysis before they made this move and their evidence proved that this will be more profitable.

If you lose 1 customer, but 6 other customers pay $10 more. You don't lose anything, if you lose 1 customer and 10 customers pay $10 more, you just made a smart business decision.

Drek
05-16-2010, 01:27 PM
Mad customers= less money and stuff.

People who buy games used =/= EA's customers.

Buying a game used makes you a customer of the reseller, and the original content provider in no way sees revenue from that.

Its a real simple concept. Used game sales only hurt publishers. They see absolutely zero return on all those used games, and when the largest games specific retailer actively pushes used over new it is a direct negative on EA's bottom line. That negative hit is only extended further when used purchasers start playing online, utilizing services and bandwidth that EA pays to provide, while still having given EA zero revenue to help pay for it.

So instead of having tens, likely hundreds, of thousands of other people's customers using EA's free online service EA is now instead going to monetize that service. If you are EA's customer you pay them up front when you buy the game, no extra charge. If instead you buy it used (i.e. you are not EA's customer) then unless you want to pay for online they'd likely rather not have you around sucking up bandwidth.

misturanderson
05-16-2010, 01:49 PM
That negative hit is only extended further when used purchasers start playing online, utilizing services and bandwidth that EA pays to provide, while still having given EA zero revenue to help pay for it.


But they already made the money for this on the original purchase. The person who sold back his game is not playing online and using EA's services, the person who now owns the game is. They still made money on every copy of the game that is being played online, therefore it isn't justifiable from anything but a money decision (as in making extra money off of a game that the original purchaser liked so much that he sold it back at a loss).

I understand why they do it, just like I understand the outrageous price that Activision charges for the MW2 map packs (I didn't at first, but when they sell 1 million downloads in the first week, it makes sense). They make a ton of extra money off of it while doing very little extra work. What's not to like from a business standpoint?

Doggcow
05-16-2010, 02:36 PM
People who buy games used =/= EA's customers.

Buying a game used makes you a customer of the reseller, and the original content provider in no way sees revenue from that.

Its a real simple concept. Used game sales only hurt publishers. They see absolutely zero return on all those used games, and when the largest games specific retailer actively pushes used over new it is a direct negative on EA's bottom line. That negative hit is only extended further when used purchasers start playing online, utilizing services and bandwidth that EA pays to provide, while still having given EA zero revenue to help pay for it.

So instead of having tens, likely hundreds, of thousands of other people's customers using EA's free online service EA is now instead going to monetize that service. If you are EA's customer you pay them up front when you buy the game, no extra charge. If instead you buy it used (i.e. you are not EA's customer) then unless you want to pay for online they'd likely rather not have you around sucking up bandwidth.

Lol, I don't get why these people don't understand these things...

EA is providing a service, which used customers get entirely for free. That service costs EA money, and they're the devil for charging for it (If you try to cheat them by buying used)

misturanderson
05-16-2010, 03:57 PM
Lol, I don't get why these people don't understand these things...

EA is providing a service, which used customers get entirely for free. That service costs EA money, and they're the devil for charging for it (If you try to cheat them by buying used)

Once again. That service was paid for, FOR THAT SPECIFIC UNIT, when the original purchaser bought the product. The person who sells back his game doesn't get to keep playing online. There was still one unit sold that EA profitted off of and only one person can play online, per unit, no matter how many times it changes hands.

This is a money grab, nothing more (not that there is anything technically wrong with that).

EA has such a dedicated (and stupid?) fanbase for their sports games (not to mention exclusive rights to the NFL license), that it doesn't matter what they do, they'll still sell a million units each year, so they don't have to do anything to keep those fans buying their crap.

Doggcow
05-16-2010, 04:24 PM
Once again. That service was paid for, FOR THAT SPECIFIC UNIT, when the original purchaser bought the product. The person who sells back his game doesn't get to keep playing online. There was still one unit sold that EA profitted off of and only one person can play online, per unit, no matter how many times it changes hands.

When a person gets to the point of selling the game back, they won't be playing online as much. The resurgence of gamers puts a bigger operating toll on EA, and no benefit to them.

Also, should EA stop updating rosters around Week 8 when more people have sold the game back (total arbitrary number, but it suits the point)? That is the portion of the fanbase that paid for the game, so why keep updating for people later?

Why should video games be the only product that doesn't lose quality while it is bought and resold? I really want to see someone ask for a Used Car Price for a New Car and see how that goes. (because, you still get the complete product ad the discounted price when it comes to games.)

ZachKC
05-16-2010, 08:00 PM
Once again. That service was paid for, FOR THAT SPECIFIC UNIT, when the original purchaser bought the product. The person who sells back his game doesn't get to keep playing online. There was still one unit sold that EA profitted off of and only one person can play online, per unit, no matter how many times it changes hands.

This is a money grab, nothing more (not that there is anything technically wrong with that).

EA has such a dedicated (and stupid?) fanbase for their sports games (not to mention exclusive rights to the NFL license), that it doesn't matter what they do, they'll still sell a million units each year, so they don't have to do anything to keep those fans buying their crap.
You are going by a set of rules hat don't exist.

Good for EA for realizing how much people love their products.

If there were not people to spend money on all of it then they wouldn't do it.

Drek
05-17-2010, 03:05 AM
But they already made the money for this on the original purchase. The person who sold back his game is not playing online and using EA's services, the person who now owns the game is. They still made money on every copy of the game that is being played online, therefore it isn't justifiable from anything but a money decision (as in making extra money off of a game that the original purchaser liked so much that he sold it back at a loss).

I understand why they do it, just like I understand the outrageous price that Activision charges for the MW2 map packs (I didn't at first, but when they sell 1 million downloads in the first week, it makes sense). They make a ton of extra money off of it while doing very little extra work. What's not to like from a business standpoint?

I don't think you quite get how it works for EA on their end.

The costs associated with their online service are more "per user" than "per unit". If the original customer logged in and signed up for an account EA will keep that account on record, track his scores, etc.. That is the real expense (and continued roster updates/gameplay patches). The actual online play is a matchmaker service where two players are offloaded to a direct link between one another.

There is a reason this has sprung up in the wake of a massive user service in the form of online franchises/leagues. The server side load to provide all that is pretty impressive and that is something tied to your EA online account.

So the original purchase provides for the costs associated with one user setting up an online account and making use of the various online features. If that person doesn't use it then the online code will still be valid when someone else buys it new, and they don't have to pay anything extra, just use the code included like a new purchaser would.

In short online play is not a per unit cost, it is a per user cost. Unless EA starts deleting accounts and all data associated with it if the account doesn't log in for a stretch of time there will be an overlap of service and therefore obviously an overlap of cost.

Its things like this that I'm ok with seeing publishers charge. $20 for a few stupid maps that will fracture the online user base is milking the consumer, but charging for people who bought the game used to get access to all its features? Just a smart way to retaliate against the massive losses produced by the largest games specific retailer in reality being a pawn shop that doesn't want to sell new product.

OABB
05-17-2010, 08:11 AM
I think ea should charge you everytime you hit a button while playing. It's good for their stockholders after all. Maybe they could charge you everytime you use the letters e or a in your speech? It's supply side economics and wholly American. Than they can take all that money and keep it as a giant bonus but say publicly that it will trickle down and create jobs.

Doggcow
05-17-2010, 08:23 AM
I think ea should charge you everytime you hit a button while playing. It's good for their stockholders after all. Maybe they could charge you everytime you use the letters e or a in your speech? It's supply side economics and wholly American. Than they can take all that money and keep it as a giant bonus but say publicly that it will trickle down and create jobs.

You act like EA is gouging their consumers, when they really aren't.

OABB
05-17-2010, 08:27 AM
You act like EA is gouging the consumers, when they really aren't.

I was mostly kidding and I understand what they are doing. It's just that companies that give a little back get more support from me. I don't have an xbox because they charge online play and ps3 doesn't. I paid more for my ps3.

Also, when people defend companies by saying they have to protect their stockbrokers I think of all the corporate fraud that hurt this country and long for the day when pleasing the customer would come first
This is a greedy country and no matter how much trouble it causes no one seems to care if they made some money.

Doggcow
05-17-2010, 08:37 AM
I was mostly kidding and I understand what they are doing. It's just that companies that give a little back get more support from me. I don't have an xbox because they charge online play and ps3 doesn't. I paid more for my ps3.

Also, when people defend companies by saying they have to protect their stockbrokers I think of all the corporate fraud that hurt this country and long for the day when pleasing the customer would come first
This is a greedy country and no matter how much trouble it causes no one seems to care if they made some money.

I defend companies because I don't see (or expect) you to be donating 25%(arbitrary) of your paychecks to us struggling gamers.

No one is. No one should.

OABB
05-17-2010, 08:40 AM
I defend companies because I don't see (or expect) you to be donating 25%(arbitrary) of your paychecks to us struggling gamers.

No one is. No one should.

I would if it helped. Not 25% but a little. As an American I am in the top 5% of the world in income and don't mind skipping a filet mignon once in a while if it makes someone elses month. But yeah, I know that I'm not the norm.

Bronco Yoda
05-17-2010, 01:27 PM
I defend companies because I don't see (or expect) you to be donating 25%(arbitrary) of your paychecks to us struggling gamers.

No one is. No one should.

You don't know **** about this company. Stop pretending you do.

EA is the Devil. Trust me.

Doggcow
05-20-2010, 12:19 PM
Just curious if any of the haters here bought Red Dead Redemption, MW2 DLC, ME2, Dragon Age etc.

And how you justify your hypocrisy.

gyldenlove
05-20-2010, 01:01 PM
You act like EA is gouging their consumers, when they really aren't.

Hmmm, Walmart should make eye-gouging part of the greeting service. That would be pretty interesting have some old man with crazy hair trying to gouge you on the way into the store. Grocery shopping should be more challenging.

ZachKC
05-21-2010, 05:18 AM
ITT: People who don't know **** about business.