EA's Not Getting Rich Off Online Pass

[GonzoGamer]

Most of that comes out of the conusmers pocket, not Gamestops.

Which is why all the "I like this because it screws gamestop" is so funny. It really screws the consumer.

Funny or Sad?
It's kind of depressing to me that crap like this is becoming more and more common because gamers don't know when they're being ripped off. And we're being ripped off at both ends: gamestop completely gouges the prices/values with it's near-monopoly and rather than trying to get some of their milions, the publishers would rather squeeze more blood from the consumer.

I hope they take their 15 mill and shove it up their asses.

 

[Deathfish15]

Yay. EA made a stupid marketing decision. Whoo hoo. Dorks.

How is it a stupid marketing decision? They've made in 10-15million in pure profits off of the idea of limiting things for pre-owned. They're finally dipping into Gamestop's take away from their sales and trying to recoup their loses. It's a great thing, and it's just starting out. Similar to Digital Distribution, which was a small thing at first which took time to boom to what it is now.

Most of that comes out of the conusmers pocket, not Gamestops.

Look at it this way. A new game that just releases is $60, the used copy is $55. So, the customer decides to completely CUT OUT the developer, manufacturer, deliverer, and producer of the game to save $5. Because, on a used copy of a game, all those people don't get paid, only Gamestop (or whichever seller) gets paid. So, but the developer charging $10-20 for an "online pass", it allows the developer to take some money sales on that 3rd party version of a sale.

So what if it comes from the customer, in reality, it pushes the customer to buy the game at retail and that way the money does cut from Gamestop (that figure is not even in this static provide).

However, when people choose to buy used and then buy the pass, it still gives those who had a hand in making the game actual money for the game. Money where credit is due, not to some know-nothing snot nosed Gamestop corporation.

 

[vivster]

it was never meant to make them richer

The intent was to get a slice of the used game pie. They thought they were going to get more. They didn't. Don't make excuses for them

they are trying to get money from people who use their services for free instead of paying for them

 

[Croaker42]

.snip.

/This

Now I would like to see the cost of implementing this online pass. Its not all found revenue and seeing the real data behind this would make me happy.

Actually, printing and distributing codes, plus generating and verifying them isn't much of a cost.

Oh I cant argue with you on that. But still I would love to see how much of an impact it does have on this 10-15m. I mean are they treating it as found revenue just for PR or is this revenue after whatever the possible cost of operation is?

 

[enriquetnt]

give it time, its PURE profit and at least they taking a bit back from the a*******s at gamestop so im whit them on this (siding whit the devil FTW!, altough that maybe because i dont play sports games so i dont get in the a** every year for a rooster update)

 

[GeorgW]

.snip.

/This

Now I would like to see the cost of implementing this online pass. Its not all found revenue and seeing the real data behind this would make me happy.

Actually, printing and distributing codes, plus generating and verifying them isn't much of a cost.

Oh I cant argue with you on that. But still I would love to see how much of an impact it does have on this 10-15m. I mean are they treating it as found revenue just for PR or is this revenue after whatever the possible cost of operation is?

It couldn't be more than half a million, so not much of a dent.

 

[PeePantz]

Yay. EA made a stupid marketing decision. Whoo hoo. Dorks.

How is it a stupid marketing decision? They've made in 10-15million in pure profits off of the idea of limiting things for pre-owned. They're finally dipping into Gamestop's take away from their sales and trying to recoup their loses. It's a great thing, and it's just starting out. Similar to Digital Distribution, which was a small thing at first which took time to boom to what it is now.

Most of that comes out of the conusmers pocket, not Gamestops.

Look at it this way. A new game that just releases is $60, the used copy is $55. So, the customer decides to completely CUT OUT the developer, manufacturer, deliverer, and producer of the game to save $5. Because, on a used copy of a game, all those people don't get paid, only Gamestop (or whichever seller) gets paid. So, but the developer charging $10-20 for an "online pass", it allows the developer to take some money sales on that 3rd party version of a sale.

This is why I like Online Pass. If people are willing to save five dollars, then they'll buy new, of course. Why pay for something more for something used? I'm positive that companies were losing a ton of money due to, essentially, a five dollar off coupon. This is shady business practice by Gamestop and I'm glad EA has found a way to stop it. When the price does drop to twenty five dollars and the new is being sold at forty, then EA Pass still isn't evil. You'd still be saving money. I fully approve of the Online Pass.

 

[Deathfish15]

However, when people choose to buy used and then buy the pass, it still gives those who had a hand in making the game actual money for the game. Money where credit is due, not to some know-nothing snot nosed Gamestop corporation.

Right, because publishers who make the decisions that have driven gaming into the superficial clone-stamped state it's in deserve credit for something.

Also, note that capitalism has never functioned on ideas of labor being intrinsically worth anything at all. Market forces decide what people get paid, and used games being $5 less is a market force.

Don't remind me about capitalism shitting on the labor force, that's why I think that capitalism fails for everyone save for those cushy CEO executives that are part of that 1% of the population that controls 99% of it's wealth. I'm pretty sure those $10-15 are going directly to EA's higher ups, but I was trying to put a positive spin on it.

 

[Epona]

Yay. EA made a stupid marketing decision. Whoo hoo. Dorks.

How is it a stupid marketing decision? They've made in 10-15million in pure profits off of the idea of limiting things for pre-owned. They're finally dipping into Gamestop's take away from their sales and trying to recoup their loses. It's a great thing, and it's just starting out. Similar to Digital Distribution, which was a small thing at first which took time to boom to what it is now.

Most of that comes out of the conusmers pocket, not Gamestops.

Look at it this way. A new game that just releases is $60, the used copy is $55. So, the customer decides to completely CUT OUT the developer, manufacturer, deliverer, and producer of the game to save $5. Because, on a used copy of a game, all those people don't get paid, only Gamestop (or whichever seller) gets paid. So, but the developer charging $10-20 for an "online pass", it allows the developer to take some money sales on that 3rd party version of a sale.

So what if it comes from the customer, in reality, it pushes the customer to buy the game at retail and that way the money does cut from Gamestop (that figure is not even in this static provide).

However, when people choose to buy used and then buy the pass, it still gives those who had a hand in making the game actual money for the game. Money where credit is due, not to some know-nothing snot nosed Gamestop corporation.

Look at it this way. That used game was already bought new and EA already got paid for it. What EA is trying to do is make $70 (or more) on a single copy of the game. EA is not entitled to get paid more than once for each copy of a game.

Before you say: "But the consumer shouldn't have bought used". Buying used is legal and there is no reason why a consumer should feel bad about it. Only in the game industry do people throw guilt trips about used sales.

 

[robert01]

I think it is because they put it on their sports games. I don't play them but I always visioned people who do play the multiplayer don't play it online, they get a couple buddies and sit around drinking beers or whatever.

I am sure if/when they decide to roll this our to the rest of their games they will see more income from it.

 

[Dalek Caan]

Is anybody really surprised? It seemed like a dumb idea in the first place, so what did they expect?

Oh, right, it's EA. They probably expected a 500 million dollar gain out of this.

It doesn't matter. In a week, they'll blame it on piracy (somehow).

You where reading my mind. Is the cost of printing the pass taken from this? If not then they would be getting less than 15 million. I hope they stop online passes now.

 

[ph0b0s123]

it was never meant to make them richer
its sole point is covering server costs
and those millions are a start

What do you mean by covering server costs? Used purchases don't cause extra load as the previous owner has left when the new owner comes on. One in one out. Simple. Love the industry spin on this.

Yay. EA made a stupid marketing decision. Whoo hoo. Dorks.

How is it a stupid marketing decision? They've made in 10-15million in pure profits off of the idea of limiting things for pre-owned. They're finally dipping into Gamestop's take away from their sales and trying to recoup their loses. It's a great thing, and it's just starting out. Similar to Digital Distribution, which was a small thing at first which took time to boom to what it is now.

Most of that comes out of the conusmers pocket, not Gamestops.

Look at it this way. A new game that just releases is $60, the used copy is $55. So, the customer decides to completely CUT OUT the developer, manufacturer, deliverer, and producer of the game to save $5. Because, on a used copy of a game, all those people don't get paid, only Gamestop (or whichever seller) gets paid. So, but the developer charging $10-20 for an "online pass", it allows the developer to take some money sales on that 3rd party version of a sale.

So what if it comes from the customer, in reality, it pushes the customer to buy the game at retail and that way the money does cut from Gamestop (that figure is not even in this static provide).

However, when people choose to buy used and then buy the pass, it still gives those who had a hand in making the game actual money for the game. Money where credit is due, not to some know-nothing snot nosed Gamestop corporation.

"Because, on a used copy of a game, all those people don't get paid"....again. They got paid the first time around as do every other maker of things in the world. But the games industry is special and have to be paid again, unlike every other industry. And better yet they have brainwashed consumers that not only should they get another bite at the cherry, but the it is their moral right.

You know used car dealers, yeah they are the scum who stop car manufacturers from getting paid every time a car is re-sold. Don't get me started with the demons that are Ebay allowing people to sell on all sorts of items without the makers getting anything.

Oh, game industry, best wheeze ever....

 

[Low Key]

If it's such a trivial amount of money, why are they even doing it? Sometimes it's best to just keep shit to yourself. I bet they were expecting to find everyone buys sports games for the online gameplay, which is wrong. When I go over to a friend's house and they are playing something like Madden, it's either a single player season, or it's a local 1 vs 1 game.

I mean, who would pay extra money to play a game against annoying 12 year olds? At least with M rated games, there is less of that sort of occurrence, but all those sports games are rated E.

 

[Riobux]

"The revenues we derive from [Online Pass] haven't been dramatic. I'd say they're in the $10 to $15 million range," he said at the Citi 2011 Tech Conference last week. On the upside, he noted that it's all "found revenue," which is to say that it's effectively pure profit coming in for services EA is already providing.

$10 to $15 million isn't dramatic? I think they need to read up on how much countries get per year to spend.

 

[Govind Sembhi]

Anyone who agrees with this pass because they think second hand buyers are robbing the giant corporation is an idiot, when you buy a second hand laptop, you cut out the payment to the computer maker and the component maker, as well as the software makers, are you asked to pay an extra fee for that? The answer is NO!

 

[UnderCoverGuest]

Yay. EA made a stupid marketing decision. Whoo hoo. Dorks.

How is it a stupid marketing decision?

Fine. It's not a stupid marketing decision. I just dislike EA more and more with each passing day and felt like releasing my opinion in a single uneducated and uninspired post.