The EA Games Service
Is EA's Online Pass a product or a service? Or neither? Or both?
Read Full Article
Is EA's Online Pass a product or a service? Or neither? Or both?
Read Full Article
The EA Games Service
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Heh. I've been arguing this for a couple of years now.
I'm glad to see a more comprehensive article on the matter at last.
Good work Shamus.
From a business perspective, EA's move about that whole online bit looks shady.
They are charging full price for a game, then charging for a service that traditionally is payed by a portion of the game's sale. Then they're charging for online content.
I would love to know what the actual cost-profit ratio is for that DLC, because if we suddenly see EA report a huge surge in earnings, it would be indicative of gouging.
I'm glad to see a more comprehensive article on the matter at last.
Good work Shamus.
From a business perspective, EA's move about that whole online bit looks shady.
They are charging full price for a game, then charging for a service that traditionally is payed by a portion of the game's sale. Then they're charging for online content.
I would love to know what the actual cost-profit ratio is for that DLC, because if we suddenly see EA report a huge surge in earnings, it would be indicative of gouging.
While there are some good points here, there's still some problems.
First, DLC (even day-one DLC) is almost always not something that was carved out of what would have been the full game at release.
Second, if you're buying the game new, you are getting the whole game (including online multiplayer) for the price of the game, so you aren't playing full-price for half a game. On the other hand, that was a badly-worded statement from EA's CEO.
Third, it's not that hard to show your buddy the multiplayer on your account.
That said, yes, EA does need to decide what they're selling. It's entirely lame that if your disk gets scratched you can't re-install the game.
First, DLC (even day-one DLC) is almost always not something that was carved out of what would have been the full game at release.
Second, if you're buying the game new, you are getting the whole game (including online multiplayer) for the price of the game, so you aren't playing full-price for half a game. On the other hand, that was a badly-worded statement from EA's CEO.
Third, it's not that hard to show your buddy the multiplayer on your account.
That said, yes, EA does need to decide what they're selling. It's entirely lame that if your disk gets scratched you can't re-install the game.
Gosh, here I thought EA was doing all right, financially, what with releasing a new iteration of each game in every series once a year!
If it was a one-time fee, I think I'd be okay with it...that is, if I bought a lot of online-enabled EA games. Right now, I think the only current-gen EA game I have is NHL 10, so I would undoubtedly be an angry fan.
This would become a different topic entirely, if we were to raise the question of Sony charging for their online service. Then, it would have to rival Microsoft (hard thing to pull off, I think) and any problems with the network couldn't be hidden from. Right now, I don't expect Sony to give me a flawless online component in all my games, as it's free; if I'm paying for it, my expectations change. That's something EA might want to think about, as well - if they start charging everyone for their 'service', they have a TON of work to do.
Edit: if EA games continue to fill bargain bins like they do, they could see a lot of money from this venture. But the cost of maintaining their servers to the extent that buyers will expect is going to cost them, as well. Used games aren't free - I can see less people buying DLC when they have to pay to even be online. I don't know, but saying that he wasn't taking a hit at the used games market seems like a silly thing to say.
If it was a one-time fee, I think I'd be okay with it...that is, if I bought a lot of online-enabled EA games. Right now, I think the only current-gen EA game I have is NHL 10, so I would undoubtedly be an angry fan.
This would become a different topic entirely, if we were to raise the question of Sony charging for their online service. Then, it would have to rival Microsoft (hard thing to pull off, I think) and any problems with the network couldn't be hidden from. Right now, I don't expect Sony to give me a flawless online component in all my games, as it's free; if I'm paying for it, my expectations change. That's something EA might want to think about, as well - if they start charging everyone for their 'service', they have a TON of work to do.
Edit: if EA games continue to fill bargain bins like they do, they could see a lot of money from this venture. But the cost of maintaining their servers to the extent that buyers will expect is going to cost them, as well. Used games aren't free - I can see less people buying DLC when they have to pay to even be online. I don't know, but saying that he wasn't taking a hit at the used games market seems like a silly thing to say.
There's a thing I don't get, even if it isn't the main point of the article: Why will Shamus be pissed if something like Steam is introduced to the next console gen?
So EA are the bad guys again right?
And they'd been doing so well in letting Activision take that throne...
And they'd been doing so well in letting Activision take that throne...
To be fair, they're only charging the ten bucks for multiplayer with used copies. New copies come with a code to unlock the multiplayer for free. It's not entirely unreasonable for them to not want to let people that haven't given them any money use their servers. (That was a mess of a sentence, but I'm sure you can decipher it.)
Otherwise I agree with this article.
Otherwise I agree with this article.
There's a scene from a certain movie that I feel fits here:
Don Corleone: We have known each other many years, but this is the first time you've come to me for games or for patches. I can't remember the last time you downloaded one of my demos, even though your friends have. But let's be frank here. You never wanted my friendship. And you feared to be in my debt.
Bonasera: I didn't want to deal with the DRM.
Don Corleone: I understand. You found paradise in Steam. You had a good trade, you made a good living. The DRM protected you and there were free updates. So you didn't need a friend like me. Now you come and say "Don Corleone, give me DLC." But you don't ask with respect. You don't offer friendship. You don't even think to call me "Godfather." You come into my house on the day my daughter is to be married and you ask me to download - for free.
Bonasera: I ask you for the game.
Don Corleone: That is not the game. Your game collection is still alive.
Bonasera: Let me play it as my friend plays it.
Bonasera: How much shall I pay you?
Don Corleone: Bonasera, Bonasera, what have I ever done to make you treat me so disrespectfully? If you'd bought the game honestly, this DLC that ruined your game collection would be already on your computer. And if by some chance an honest man like yourself had to reinstall, we would let you. And then, you could play the game again.
Bonasera: Be my friend... Godfather.
Don Corleone: Good.
Don Corleone: Some day, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to pay for some more DLC. But until that day, consider this game a gift on my daughter's wedding day.
Don Corleone: We have known each other many years, but this is the first time you've come to me for games or for patches. I can't remember the last time you downloaded one of my demos, even though your friends have. But let's be frank here. You never wanted my friendship. And you feared to be in my debt.
Bonasera: I didn't want to deal with the DRM.
Don Corleone: I understand. You found paradise in Steam. You had a good trade, you made a good living. The DRM protected you and there were free updates. So you didn't need a friend like me. Now you come and say "Don Corleone, give me DLC." But you don't ask with respect. You don't offer friendship. You don't even think to call me "Godfather." You come into my house on the day my daughter is to be married and you ask me to download - for free.
Bonasera: I ask you for the game.
Don Corleone: That is not the game. Your game collection is still alive.
Bonasera: Let me play it as my friend plays it.
Bonasera: How much shall I pay you?
Don Corleone: Bonasera, Bonasera, what have I ever done to make you treat me so disrespectfully? If you'd bought the game honestly, this DLC that ruined your game collection would be already on your computer. And if by some chance an honest man like yourself had to reinstall, we would let you. And then, you could play the game again.
Bonasera: Be my friend... Godfather.
Don Corleone: Good.
Don Corleone: Some day, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to pay for some more DLC. But until that day, consider this game a gift on my daughter's wedding day.
As others have pointed out, this article is a little skewed due to the fact that (so far) EA isn't charging extra for the online access as long as you buy your games new. Granted, given the quote from Riticello it does sound a little more nefarious than that.
EA annoyed me with ME2. I bought it first hand from a small shop in my uni town who (simply to stay in the black) do not do refunds/returns, so my receipt was pointless.
Disc 2 was pre-scratched. This was a fortnight after release I'd bought it, EA wouldn't replace it because I had no proof I'd had it for less than three months. Two weeks after UK release, Three after US.
Physically impossible to have had it for three months.
Unless I'm a fucking Time Lord.
Disc 2 was pre-scratched. This was a fortnight after release I'd bought it, EA wouldn't replace it because I had no proof I'd had it for less than three months. Two weeks after UK release, Three after US.
Physically impossible to have had it for three months.
Unless I'm a fucking Time Lord.
I'll say this, from a Retailer's perspective, it better remain a product. Otherwise there's going to be a lot of people out of work.
I wish EA would stop pretending that the Used Game Market is killing them. I work at an independent game store. If we sell an EA game at full price, we make a dollar. Sometimes less. I realize that big box stores are doing better, probably making a bit more than that. But even if thanks to wholesale they were making a 500% profit? That's still 5 bucks to them, and 55 to EA.
But the used game market IS the retail market. Without it, there are no retailers.
So let me get this straight, you can release annual titles at 55 dollars gross profit a piece, and you don't make enough money? I realize, I don't know what that is net. And I get it, I mean, I get that companies ALWAYS want more money, but instead of outdoing the competition or making better products so that people have to be day one buyers, or just cut the costs of your development. Y'know, talented designers have been making award-winning, sales-making, blockbusters on cheaper tech for awhile now. Maybe you can get some of that going on?
I just don't understand why retailers have to suffer. Remove the used game market and retailers wither and die OR games shoot up 30% in cost. Either way, its your customers that suffer. I spend my work days telling people to buy your product, and you're putting me out of business.
I wish EA would stop pretending that the Used Game Market is killing them. I work at an independent game store. If we sell an EA game at full price, we make a dollar. Sometimes less. I realize that big box stores are doing better, probably making a bit more than that. But even if thanks to wholesale they were making a 500% profit? That's still 5 bucks to them, and 55 to EA.
But the used game market IS the retail market. Without it, there are no retailers.
So let me get this straight, you can release annual titles at 55 dollars gross profit a piece, and you don't make enough money? I realize, I don't know what that is net. And I get it, I mean, I get that companies ALWAYS want more money, but instead of outdoing the competition or making better products so that people have to be day one buyers, or just cut the costs of your development. Y'know, talented designers have been making award-winning, sales-making, blockbusters on cheaper tech for awhile now. Maybe you can get some of that going on?
I just don't understand why retailers have to suffer. Remove the used game market and retailers wither and die OR games shoot up 30% in cost. Either way, its your customers that suffer. I spend my work days telling people to buy your product, and you're putting me out of business.
I'm sorry, but why is asking people who have never given any money to EA to pay to help maintain servers and patches a bad thing? If you buy the game new, EA get your money and you can play online. If you buy used, you haven't supported EA, so why should they let you play on servers others have paid for? I accept that this has been going on for years on the PC, but thats supported by individuals, and not the developers/publishers.
People argue that Pirates have a feeling of entitlement, but it seems to be the same for any gamers. People who buy games used expect the publishers to provide services (yes, multiplayer is a service because its an addition to the game) that they haven't supported. Personally I support EA in this and hope other companies start to copy. Remember, both Piracy and buying used means you've got a game without supporting the original creators, but at least pirates sometimes buy what they copy.
People argue that Pirates have a feeling of entitlement, but it seems to be the same for any gamers. People who buy games used expect the publishers to provide services (yes, multiplayer is a service because its an addition to the game) that they haven't supported. Personally I support EA in this and hope other companies start to copy. Remember, both Piracy and buying used means you've got a game without supporting the original creators, but at least pirates sometimes buy what they copy.
Yea, and Xbox LIVE made all downloads completely free when it started out too.StriderShinryu said:
Whenever EA does anything, it's to screw people out of their money one nickle and dime at a time worse than any other company. They've abused the microtransaction system to make their games' final cost the most expensive, and they're the worst about giving minimal content for full price that has pay for DLC from the first day to month.
The longer these companies go, the more frustrating they make it to be a fan of video games. I just wish they and Activision would just collapse so smaller independant devs can compete.
Well, I was actually poking a bit of fun at myself for always writing about this sort of stuff.Khornefire said:
It actually depends on how it worked, but what if consoles required 24/7 internet in order to operate, you couldn't rent or borrow games, and games were forever locked to your account?
It's all speculation now, of course. But I'd be really surprised if nobody tried to engage Valve.
One thing I cant help but notice about your articles is that you tend to make light fun of your constant ragging on the popular topic of the month, so I assume you have finally decided that everybody has now been made aware of your opinion. And you then proceed to reiterate the point again anyway. I mean, I must admit this may only partially be irritating me because I disagree with the opinion that digital distribution is inferior to packaged products (which is not so say that I do not consider it) but it is actually also getting in the way of enjoying your articles.Shamus Young said:
I usually quite like reading your opinions in Experienced Points but when I see that you are making the same point as you have done time and time again I have to fight an overwhelming urge to just flick over to something else on the escapist. I did stay and read the article which was as informative as ever, but if I think that you are going to say something that I already saw you say many times before it makes me loose interest quickly. Anyway sorry to be so negative just wanted to point it out.
Games being a service... that's fine. At a dollar per hour of playtime--say hypothetically that's how we were charged--I'd probably save a lot of money over $50-60 per game, on average.
If I get more than a month out of an MMO, and usually I get several, the $15 monthly fee saves me quite a bit of money over buying new games outright once or twice a month. Even At 25 cents for a few minutes, I have a lot of good memories from afternoons spent in arcades.
It's a reasonable model where good games would prosper and pieces of crap with nice cover art and hyped reviews would fall by the wayside.
If I get more than a month out of an MMO, and usually I get several, the $15 monthly fee saves me quite a bit of money over buying new games outright once or twice a month. Even At 25 cents for a few minutes, I have a lot of good memories from afternoons spent in arcades.
It's a reasonable model where good games would prosper and pieces of crap with nice cover art and hyped reviews would fall by the wayside.
Actually (being my usual pedantic self) I feel the need to point out that you don't need an online connection most of the time to play games from Steam, you obviously need one to sign up and download the client the first time, and you need one when you're actually installing the game, but apart from that there is an "offline mode" that legs you log in and play without any internet connection (obviously you can't play multiplayer games online this way).
Other than that a fantastic article as always, and a very interesting read, if Sony and Microsoft went down the Digital Distribution method with their next consoles I would REALLY hope they take a page from Valve's book and not EA's, I don't mind gaming as a service or digital distribution, but only if it benefits the customer more than it hinders them, which is what you were getting at also I guess.
Other than that a fantastic article as always, and a very interesting read, if Sony and Microsoft went down the Digital Distribution method with their next consoles I would REALLY hope they take a page from Valve's book and not EA's, I don't mind gaming as a service or digital distribution, but only if it benefits the customer more than it hinders them, which is what you were getting at also I guess.
The thing is...the games are finished, even at half finished.
I can hardly say that I felt ripped off my Mass Effect 2 in terms of size without the DLC. And I can't say that about Dragon Age, or Battlefield either.
I can hardly say that I felt ripped off my Mass Effect 2 in terms of size without the DLC. And I can't say that about Dragon Age, or Battlefield either.
Are games either a service or a Product?
The Answer is quite simple:
If classifying the game as a product gives the consumers any for of consumer rights - It is a "service".
If classifying the game as a service; giving consumers any consumer rights - EA says it is a "product". See? It is quite simple! Dont you guys love capitalism?!
Given the fact that EA can change between these two classifications when it come to their games to suit their own needs and rights to swindle people out of their money I would say it is indeed a dark age for consumer rights.
The Answer is quite simple:
If classifying the game as a product gives the consumers any for of consumer rights - It is a "service".
If classifying the game as a service; giving consumers any consumer rights - EA says it is a "product". See? It is quite simple! Dont you guys love capitalism?!
Given the fact that EA can change between these two classifications when it come to their games to suit their own needs and rights to swindle people out of their money I would say it is indeed a dark age for consumer rights.