EA Boss Defends Online Passes

[rees263]

Retail chains

I'm not familiar with ones in the UK, but it seems that this is more about the economics than wrongdoing. Rather than go into all of the economic parts, it's probably safe to say that either A) the government taxes games severly or B) more demand = higher prices

I'm to believe, as there are less gamers in the UK than say the US, the price on gaming is higher. Especially when you get into shipping and handling to the UK.

If there were a national chain, you would probably see more uniform prices.

There is a national chain. Two, in fact, owned by the same company: GAME and GameStation. Oh, and HMV, but they still specialise in music and don't do trade-ins. As for the price of gaming... £40 = $58.33 according to Google. However, there is a bit of tradition of prices falling fairly rapidly. Although that's mainly on websites.

Actually HMV have been doing pre-owned games for a while now. I don't know exactly how they operate, I've never traded in any games there myself but I have bought some and the prices weren't toobad - certainly no worse than GAME.

OT: I don't see what the problem is with things like project $10. As far as I see it, all they are doing is itemising the cost of the game. So whereas you would usually see a game priced at $60, you can now look at it like this:

Game: $50 (can resell)
Online Pass: $10 (cannot resell)

So you are still paying for $60 worth of content, but the bit you can sell on is only worth $50. If the prices in used game stores don't reflect this change in value then you can always shop elsewhere. This should be a good thing - for people who aren't interested in online play the price of a used game should be less and the industry gets some extra money.

It will probably end up hurting people who like to trade in their games (what they're trading in is now worth less), but I would expect the trade in value on EA sports games to be horrendous anyway. No other types of games are obsolete after a year.

 

[Danpascooch]

This is a sad excuse, when a game that obviously needs multiplayer doesn't have it, that's a game that IS NOT FINISHED.

He said "the project was only half done" well then, FINISH IT or don't charge full price.

Basically what I hear is: "we are now selling you half finished games (at full price), and charging you to get the rest of the game, but for some reason, we're only charging you if you buy used?"

If he was being honest and it really was about funding further development, than it still wouldn't make sense, because buying DLC funds that extra content (in the form of DLC) just fine, it doesn't explain why they make you pay WHEN YOU BUY THE GAME USED, but not new, which wouldn't fund that anyway! It makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Autofaux]

I see no issue with this. Regardless of the exchange rate, Australian gaming enthusiasts have to pay close to twice as much as those in the US most of the time for a copy of a game. Here, GameStop isn't nearly the all-powerful company and used game sales are just as ludicrously expensive as the new stuff, so even if its say, twenty bucks off, its still usually only seventy or ninety dollars.
Ultimately, EA has done this because you all spoke with your wallets; paying five dollars less for a used copy, instead of paying full price, is the way to go. And since publishers and devs see none of that fifty-five dollars you spent, they've resorted to tapping a major part of a game's playability on a used copy. And better yet, with the way it's set up, they turn a five dollar profit on every person who buys an online pass with a used copy as a result.

EA set the bar for consumer dick moves, but this in comparison is relatively mild.

Now, if you buy a new copy, you save five dollars! Hey, its like nothing ever happened, right?

 

[Kimarous]

Speaking with IndustryGamers [http://www.industrygamers.com/news/ea-ceo-john-riccitiello-talks-e3-online-pass-3d-gaming-and-more/1/], Riccitiello emphasized his support for the system when asked whether or not he thought that comment was "disingenuous."

 

[UnravThreads]

There is a national chain. Two, in fact, owned by the same company: GAME and GameStation. Oh, and HMV, but they still specialise in music and don't do trade-ins. As for the price of gaming... £40 = $58.33 according to Google. However, there is a bit of tradition of prices falling fairly rapidly. Although that's mainly on websites.

Pssst, HMV does do trade-ins.
The UK is, funnily enough, a lot better for game prices - even on things like Amazon. I've seen a few instances of the UK being maybe half the price of the US at times, although on the flip side the US can be better.
But I... Hm. I don't disagree with what they're doing. If you buy your games new then you're generally not affected by things like this, and if you buy used then you're still supporting the developer and publisher when you buy the pass. I'm not sure if something as "important" as Online is really the way to go, though. You're almost forcing people to buy it if they want to use the game, and I think that's a bit cheeky.

 

[Don't Poke My Bobcat]

No, I get it. But with the Dragon Age DLC you actually got something extra for buying the new copy. With this they're restricting online, which nowadays is around 50 percent or more of the game for a lot of people.

The Dragon Age DLC was just an extra companion, a little 'Thanks for buying it new!' compliment if you will. Restricting online when its so crucial to a fair amount of players seems unfair. There was more of a consumer benefit with the DLC scheme.

It is exactly the same thing.

You've just been spoiled by getting online play without any parameters involved. Now buying new is getting to play online without further charge, the extra if you will.

Now is a good time to get into EA games if you don't play online. Usually the previous year's Madden sells for about $3 when the new one comes out. Now, I doubt it'll be more than $1 thanks to their online pass bullshit.

If EA wants to charge for things they sell online, like their Ultimate Team option (whatever that is), that's cool, but don't charge gamers to play online. They pay the ISPs to be online, if they have a 360 they have to pay for XBL, and now if you buy used, you have to pay another $10. In the end, they might see some profit from Sony and Nintendo users since they don't have to pay, but their profits from the 360 will drop. I guarantee it.

I guarantee that their profits will increase. People who buy a game pre owned are not a "consumer" in the very primary understanding of it - at least from a corporate view.

These pre owned purchasers will now have to supply the developers/publishers with the extra capital to play a game that is usual for post release content to be worked on. The first example is GoW2 which is now up to Title Update 6, adjusting the game to the community's whim. For free.


As a general aside for the subject: If you are annoyed by this, chances are you buy preowned and therefore get this into your head; Publishers do not care one tiny inch about you.

If your feathers are ruffled because you're not getting the full game when you rent, GameFly or purchase preowned: chin up sunshine.

All game packaging clearly states online services etc are subject to the publishers discretion and will be withdrawn at any time they like. Dragon Age, that everyone is referencing with so much love, expired 30 April 2010. Those passes now need to be paid for even if you buy new.

Just be grateful you're not paying for subscriptions for each games multiplayer, yet. As much as people cite XBox Live as the cost of entry, that pays for all the nonsense on the dashboard. Andy and Dan's salaries for floundering around in their videos - if they actually put that is what you were paying for you wouldn't buy it. Hence the gateway to a service that Microsoft do nothing for (i.e. hosting).

Speaking of which EA offer more stable servers (removing "host advantage" amongst other stability issues) for free. So pre owned scabs get to use EA maintained for free? Not a chance - not anymore, your free day in the sun has ended. (For clarity: free as from EA's point of view)

 

[Low Key]

Now is a good time to get into EA games if you don't play online. Usually the previous year's Madden sells for about $3 when the new one comes out. Now, I doubt it'll be more than $1 thanks to their online pass bullshit.

If EA wants to charge for things they sell online, like their Ultimate Team option (whatever that is), that's cool, but don't charge gamers to play online. They pay the ISPs to be online, if they have a 360 they have to pay for XBL, and now if you buy used, you have to pay another $10. In the end, they might see some profit from Sony and Nintendo users since they don't have to pay, but their profits from the 360 will drop. I guarantee it.

I guarantee that their profits will increase. People who buy a game pre owned are not a "consumer" in the very primary understanding of it - at least from a corporate view.

These pre owned purchasers will now have to supply the developers/publishers with the extra capital to play a game that is usual for post release content to be worked on. The first example is GoW2 which is now up to Title Update 6, adjusting the game to the community's whim. For free.


As a general aside for the subject: If you are annoyed by this, chances are you buy preowned and therefore get this into your head; Publishers do not care one tiny inch about you.

If your feathers are ruffled because you're not getting the full game when you rent, GameFly or purchase preowned: chin up sunshine.

All game packaging clearly states online services etc are subject to the publishers discretion and will be withdrawn at any time they like. Dragon Age, that everyone is referencing with so much love, expired 30 April 2010. Those passes now need to be paid for even if you buy new.

Just be grateful you're not paying for subscriptions for each games multiplayer, yet. As much as people cite XBox Live as the cost of entry, that pays for all the nonsense on the dashboard. Andy and Dan's salaries for floundering around in their videos - if they actually put that is what you were paying for you wouldn't buy it. Hence the gateway to a service that Microsoft do nothing for (i.e. hosting).

Speaking of which EA offer more stable servers (removing "host advantage" amongst other stability issues) for free. So pre owned scabs get to use EA maintained for free? Not a chance - not anymore, your free day in the sun has ended. (For clarity: free as from EA's point of view)

I'm purely talking about EA sports games. Nothing else. I dig DLC, dude.

Anyways, it comes down to this simple logic. Do you know why last years Madden is $2 at your local GameStop? Because no one plays them anymore. Who the hell would pay $10 to play online when no one plays it? You answer that question and you'll get what I said above.

 

[Captain Pancake]

So capitalism is good is it makes profit for EA, but its bad when it does not make profit for EA? Okay.....

Ummm... What?

 

[tehroc]

Sucks for renters. I couldn't give a damn about used game sales as most outlets are a clear rip off. Gamefly is the only decent value. Oh well good thing I don't play sports games or multiplayer usually.

 

[Woodsey]

I have no problem with 10 dollar, but I can't make up my mind on this.

 

[scotth266]

If the multi-player is not on the disc? Fair game.

If is on the disc? Well, then it's just that hated Resident Evil 5 crap all over again.

 

[Don't Poke My Bobcat]

I'm purely talking about EA sports games. Nothing else. I dig DLC, dude.

Anyways, it comes down to this simple logic. Do you know why last years Madden is $2 at your local GameStop? Because no one plays them anymore. Who the hell would pay $10 to play online when no one plays it? You answer that question and you'll get what I said above.

Its $2 because its an outdated piece of software, much like 1995 Golfs are nothing compared to 2010 Golfs, just the decay period is smaller with games.

Also; because EA shut down the servers to ensure that if you wish to play online you must continue to purchase the new incarnations - now pre owned purchasers will not only have to pay to get online but have a (more) limited window to do so. A double pronged assault if you like.

EA very successfully apply the Planned Obsolescene business model with their sports franchise. For another example you can look at Gilette razors.

They don't want you to spend $10 at all, they want you to spend the initial $60 - so they are achieving their aim.

Question answered.

 

[Nyrad01]

See I can understand Project $10, it's like saying 'Hey, you spent £40-50 on a new game, here's some DLC as our way of saying thanks!' If you don't buy it new, no worries, your still getting your full game, just no extra things.

But using this to unlock online mode? That's not so cool. It means that if, like myself being a student, you can't grab a bargain on a preowned game and hop online, you need to buy it new. It means a preowned game is only part of a game. You wouldn't go and buy a preowned car and get told you can only get the engine when it's new, would you? I know it's a silly example, but it gets the point across more.

 

[CD-R]

As a general aside for the subject: If you are annoyed by this, chances are you buy preowned and therefore get this into your head; Publishers do not care one tiny inch about you.

If your feathers are ruffled because you're not getting the full game when you rent, GameFly or purchase preowned: chin up sunshine.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly.

Fun fact. It's actually against the law to rent games in Japan and Belgium.

 

[Low Key]

I'm purely talking about EA sports games. Nothing else. I dig DLC, dude.

Anyways, it comes down to this simple logic. Do you know why last years Madden is $2 at your local GameStop? Because no one plays them anymore. Who the hell would pay $10 to play online when no one plays it? You answer that question and you'll get what I said above.

Its $2 because its an outdated piece of software, much like 1995 Golfs are nothing compared to 2010 Golfs, just the decay period is smaller with games.

Also; because EA shut down the servers to ensure that if you wish to play online you must continue to purchase the new incarnations - now pre owned purchasers will not only have to pay to get online but have a (more) limited window to do so. A double pronged assault if you like.

EA very successfully apply the Planned Obsolescene business model with their sports franchise. For another example you can look at Gilette razors.

They don't want you to spend $10 at all, they want you to spend the initial $60 - so they are achieving their aim.

Question answered.

But anyone who buys EA sports games will most likely buy new at launch anyways. They don't want someone to go the $10 route, but they are implementing it because they think they are missing out on cash, which they aren't because the people who follow their releases will have already spent the initial $60. Those who buy used most likely don't buy it for the online experience anyways, rendering the online pass plan kind of pointless.

 

[Don't Poke My Bobcat]

But anyone who buys EA sports games will most likely buy new at launch anyways. They don't want someone to go the $10 route, but they are implementing it because they think they are missing out on cash, which they aren't because the people who follow their releases will have already spent the initial $60. Those who buy used most likely don't buy it for the online experience anyways, rendering the online pass plan kind of pointless.

They are missing out on cash, if even one game gets sold on a second hand basis they have lost out.

You're looking at the $10 thing through too small a window, its a deterrent from buying second hand as well as a fund grab.

If you buy second hand at $45 for example, then have to pay $10 to get the game online you aren't achieving much of a saving - an extra $5 to get a brand new shiny copy of the game doesn't seem that bad. So the $10 has actually turned into $60 - if you've heard of opportunity cost you'll understand, basically by placing this caveat they stand to lose nothing but have a chance of receiving $10 or $60.

I'd like to know what research you're deriving your assumptioms from - because they're quite broad.

With EA's online system as well not only do they see no profit from the sale, but they host their own servers and therefore in theory are out of pocket for each second hand game. So if your presumption that used purchasers don't buy for the online experience (...) this stops them full stop from taking resources. Again, opportunity cost comes in but this time a loss is protected.

 

[Carlston]

Well resales only help resale shops. Someone has to pay for those multiplayer networks....

Huh... still, it reeks of just another dollar to scratch at.

But what's next? Extra charge for a instruction manual?

 

[Low Key]

But anyone who buys EA sports games will most likely buy new at launch anyways. They don't want someone to go the $10 route, but they are implementing it because they think they are missing out on cash, which they aren't because the people who follow their releases will have already spent the initial $60. Those who buy used most likely don't buy it for the online experience anyways, rendering the online pass plan kind of pointless.

They are missing out on cash, if even one game gets sold on a second hand basis they have lost out.

You're looking at the $10 thing through too small a window, its a deterrent from buying second hand as well as a fund grab.

If you buy second hand at $45 for example, then have to pay $10 to get the game online you aren't achieving much of a saving - an extra $5 to get a brand new shiny copy of the game doesn't seem that bad. So the $10 has actually turned into $60 - if you've heard of opportunity cost you'll understand, basically by placing this caveat they stand to lose nothing but have a chance of receiving $10 or $60.

I'd like to know what research you're deriving your assumptioms from - because they're quite broad.

With EA's online system as well not only do they see no profit from the sale, but they host their own servers and therefore in theory are out of pocket for each second hand game. So if your presumption that used purchasers don't buy for the online experience (...) this stops them full stop from taking resources. Again, opportunity cost comes in but this time a loss is protected.

I understand they miss out if just one person buys the game used, but my question is how many people actually do that? I can't imagine very many do. As with most games, the price gets lowered as the new game nears release. So it may be $35 used, but as you suggested, it should relatively be the same brand new towards the end of the games lifespan. It just seems to me like they created a program to cover a relatively small portion of gamers.

This isn't based on any research aside from talking with people who regularly buy and play EA sports games. They all buy new on launch, because they want to experience the full season as it happens. When I used to buy EA sports games, I bought it used because I just wanted to play some football. I never went online with it. I know that's not very scientific, but it should somewhat reflect the tendencies of the average EA sports gamer regardless.

 

[TheGuy(wantstobe)]

Way too much focus on online multiplayer nowadays and DLC that does no more than unlock content already on the disc, or allow them to ship earlier and charge extra for content that was planned to be in the full game at a later date. The end result is that the customer, the gamer, is screwed more times than Yahtzee's triple****ed hooker.