Et tu EA?

[Owyn_Merrilin]

First off, no I would not.

Secondly, wow. It's been so long since I've bought a new game I'm completely out of the loop when it comes to how they are trying to nickle and dime us out of money.

Wow, someone else on this forum who doesn't blindly cheer on the game companies as they try to separate us from our money. You are a minority on this site my friend. Be proud.


OT: Yep, that's what EA does. Game companies are unique in the way they rip off their customers, and then use their PR arm to somehow make them think they're getting a good deal. I mean, there's plenty of scams that work on that principle, but the difference is with most scams, the victims don't suffer from Stockholm syndrome.

I really hate to be the one to say this but if you need to spend that 10 bucks, the moment you pay you become their customer. You are Gamestop's or the pawn shops or ebays customer before then. How do you be a customer of some company you aren't buying something from? Just because you own a EA product does not make you their customer. Just like owning a GMC car you bought used does not make you a GMC customer.

It hurts the person who bought the original game by lowering the resale value. Further, just because you buy one game used does not mean you buy everything used -- my fairly respectable Steam collection is evidence in that direction. Finally, all the little bits of nickel and diming they do -- if you can call, say, charging a quarter of the cost of the game for four new multiplayer maps "nickel and diming" -- ultimately hurts the consumer. Basically, whether or not I am a customer of a given publisher on one specific purchase, I either have or will most likely pay for a new game from them at some point. When they screw me over, no matter what the context, it doesn't make me look favorably upon them. This is without getting into DRM at all.

Edit: to be clear, that "screwing over their customers" line was in reference to their overall business plan, not exclusively to this particular practice. We take it up the wrong end from these guys on a daily basis, and there is a disturbing percentage of gamers who bend over and say "thank you sir, can I have another?"

The only people getting screwed over by project $10 are the people who are screwing them over. Simple math really. Just because you bought another game of theirs new makes no difference. They had to pay to make each one. When you buy it new you are paying for that game. If you want to invest in future games by stock in the company.

This not to be mistaken for 100 dollar smurfberry wagons or $25 pets in a subscription based mmo. This is just about project $10. Which is a brilliant strategy to turn non customers into customers. And why should they care if it lowers the value of something they are trying to stop you from doing in the first place?

Look, under US law, once they sell me that game, it's mine to do with it as I wish. If I want to sell it on, legally, I have that right. Technically, these companies are infringing upon my rights as a consumer, while my actions do nothing of the sort to their rights. It's not screwing them over to buy used; you're thinking of piracy.

Edit: Also, if the original customer buys the game expecting to be able to sell it on later, lowering the resale value lowers what he/she is willing to pay, effectively devalues the product the publisher was trying to increase the profits of. This Project $10 stuff is really not good for anyone.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Snip

This is just repeatedly going around in circles.

I'm sorry, but the guitar metaphor is crap and not at all what happens. If you buy a guitar second hand you're entitled to the guitar, you're not however entitled to the Online Tutorial Access Code that came with the guitar with the first sale. You'll have to buy another access code.

Just like most second hand games don't restrict half of the original story until you pay $20.

What they do restrict, is things like DLC and Multiplayer. Extra Content intended for paying customers. You are not paying the developers, you are not a paying customer of Ubisoft.

You paid for the second hand copy, you paid for the game and the physical copy. You did not pay for the extra content supplied by the developer.

That's how I see this.

If second hand copies suddenly start restricting the content that should be a given (such as being able to save the game). Then maybe I'll take an issue, maybe. I see it as a form of legal piracy though, I'm not all up in arms about piracy being wrong or anything, I'm more of a "see's the merit to both sides" person.

I just find it hypocritical accusing corporations of being greedy when it's coming from someone who doesn't contribute to said corporation anyway.

Again, the stuff from Project $10 is all on the disc, and in this day and age, multiplayer is in no way, shape, or form an "added bonus." For most games that include it, it's actually the main draw. Removing the headstock from the guitar is equivalent to removing multiplayer functionality from a game, at least if that's the main selling point of said game. If I pay for a disc, the contents are mine. EULAs have no meaning to me.

 

[ZtH]

Having read through all the posts made here I have to say I'm against the $10 charge.

Two points that I feel haven't been explored adequately are the deterioration of physical copies of games and some of the ramifications of this project on the used gaming market.

As for the deterioration of the games, it has been stated numerous times in this topic that you're paying significantly less for a copy that is precisely the same as the original, which I feel is not the case. As cd's are used they will inevitably develop scratches and other wear on this disk itself. This deteriorating condition means that any used copy of a game cannot be infinitely passed between successive purchasers while preserving the original content. This clearly separates used games from piracy as piracy results in an infinite number of copies of precisely the same experience.

As for the effect of this on the used games industry, it seems to me that this project places undue importance on the resale of games in order to maintain servers and the like. For instance if we take an example of someone buying a new copy of the game on release and playing it for a year, this player is assumed to have payed for his year of use on the online servers with his initial purchase. Now suppose in a different instance someone purchases the game new, plays it for six months, and then sells it to his friend who plays for an additional six months. In both cases a year's worth of server usage is incurred and the same amount is payed to the developer.
Now if we add project ten dollar into the equation the same amount of server time between the instances adds up to two different amounts payed to the developer, with more money being payed by the pair of players who exchanged the copy between them. The exact same costs were incurred by the developer to run the server and yet with the used sale they earned more. This can be extended to any period of time and if you add in more exchanges between players the developer increases their profit even more off of each disc.
So with the assumption that the developer by selling you the disc new agrees to front the costs of running the online server for the lifetime of your game we see that there is no loss for used sales. In fact with this project ten dollar they are making more money by repeatedly charging for the same services.
The only argument relating to server maintenance that remains relies on the assumption that the developers are not agreeing to maintain those servers for the lifetime of the game and are in fact relying on customers not utilizing their product for the full length offered. Even in this instance it would be more fair to use recurring charges for any online use for all players including those who bought new. This would be even worse for consumers as every game would become pay-to-play.

EDIT: Sorry, re-reading I wasn't clear on how it actually encouraged used sales. By selling games at a price at which they cannot continue to provide service for the lifetime of the game they are relying on used game sales and project ten dollar revenue to pay for people who continue playing for long periods of time with their original purchase. Relying on those charges to continue to pay for those customers means the original sale price wasn't high enough to reflect the services expected. This unsustainable business plan results in poor service to all who bought the game new or used because with any slowdown in used sales the company will lack the funds to maintain the servers.

 

[BrionJames]

I say to hell with EA. Like they're actually losing money, fuck 'em I say, if they want extra money for shit that should already be there, then I think they just lost the money I might have spent on the ludicrous DLC prices that everyone charges everyday for every damn game. I guess I'm not surprised, if the production companies can hold everyone hostage because they've bought up the rights to every fucking game imaginable, then I guess they will try to suck as much money as they can out of your pocket, it's a backwards ass way of doing it, but hey since they can't charge us eighty dollars for a brand new game, might as well try and get as much as they can out of you.

 

[dbmountain]

The fact of the matter is, it's THEIR product and they can do whatever they want with it. Furthermore, people will still buy it no matter what. Sounds like a good business decision to me

 

[dagens24]

OP has somewhat of a point. I think it's wrong of them to promote content that you need to pass for as though it were default content. If EA is going all kinds of ads and promoting for the game being all 'Oh yeah, it has online multiplayer' and doesn't mention it's considered DLC since you need the unlock code then I think that is wrong. If I buy a game 2nd hand and it says it includes multiplayer on the box without mentioning that I either need the original online code or to pay an additional $10 to play online then that is fraud. That being said, if they are up front and honest about it; when they are previewing the game they are making it clear what content is considered DLC and what isn't, and they make it clear on the box what is included by default versus what you need to use the code (or pay for) to download then all the power to them. They have a right to provide whatever content they want for whatever price they want, as long as they are transparent about it and aren't fooling people into buying a product by making promises about what content it includes and then later charging you extra to get that content.

 

[Sarge034]

I think your book comparison is the best one I've heard in a while and I agree to a point. I see the used game market as reselling the hard copy of the book.... the single player... and I have no issue with this, as nothing is gained or lost by its changing hands AND no additional costs are incured by the company. However, EA has their own servers that continue to encure costs with each aditional profile. For thoes of you who don't belive me, go to your 360, put in an EA game, and go to the multiplayer. You see where you have to sign in to your EA account? Do you have to do that to play a non-EA game? As it is costing the company money to provide a service to a new customer with none of the compensation the first person had to pay, I'm ok with the $10 server fee. It allowes for the product that does not cost the company money to maintain to change hands, while making sure everyone payes their fair share or the opperating costs for the services the company DOES have to maintain.

Also sorry about any spelling issues, I've been up for about 26 hours now.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Again, the stuff from Project $10 is all on the disc, and in this day and age, multiplayer is in no way, shape, or form an "added bonus.

By my understanding of Project $10, EA include additional content on the discs for people who purchase a new copy and redeem the content with their one time key (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'm at work and a majority of sites that are said to explain it are filtered).

So, again by my understanding, when you purchase that game used you are fully aware that there is no working key to that redeemable content. Am I right so far? And that you are also fully aware that you will be required to purchase that content. What's the problem? You have the game, you have the core content (core content being the game) and you're only missing the extras thrown in; regardless of whether they're on the disc or not.

As for activating Project $10 affecting multiplayer; well again what's the problem? Someone who has purchased new has already paid for their 'online pass' and have contributed to the upkeep and running of servers for online games. To purchase the game used and then expect access online without a contribution is pretty self entitled.

I've got nothing against used games. I own a few myself and I don't believe there's anything wrong with used games. But I fail to see how what EA is doing is wrong.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Again, the stuff from Project $10 is all on the disc, and in this day and age, multiplayer is in no way, shape, or form an "added bonus.

By my understanding of Project $10, EA include additional content on the discs for people who purchase a new copy and redeem the content with their one time key (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'm at work and a majority of sites that are said to explain it are filtered).

So, again by my understanding, when you purchase that game used you are fully aware that there is no working key to that redeemable content. Am I right so far? And that you are also fully aware that you will be required to purchase that content. What's the problem? You have the game, you have the core content (core content being the game) and you're only missing the extras thrown in; regardless of whether they're on the disc or not.

As for activating Project $10 affecting multiplayer; well again what's the problem? Someone who has purchased new has already paid for their 'online pass' and have contributed to the upkeep and running of servers for online games. To purchase the game used and then expect access online without a contribution is pretty self entitled.

I've got nothing against used games. I own a few myself and I don't believe there's anything wrong with used games. But I fail to see how what EA is doing is wrong.

They call it extra content, but it's usually on the actual disc with the rest of the content, and all the code does is unlock it. From my point of view, if I pay for a disc, whatever is on it is mine. As for why making multiplayer a part of Project $10 is so bad, it's because multiplayer is no longer an added bonus to a game -- it is every bit as much a core part of the experience as the singleplayer, heck, it's closer to the core in a lot of cases. they've also already been paid for all of the content that they are denying you, and the person who paid for it can no longer access it, having sold his or her game to you. EA is out no money for your used purchase, anything they take on it is pure profit, profit that is completely undeserved in this case. You don't pay the publisher every time you buy a used book, do you?

 

[MADrevilution]

theres a slip of paper in the case with the code, im sure this has probably already been said in the comments above me

 

[Dys]

Simple solution; don't buy those games.

Any publisher that thinks I'm willing to pay a 'project $10' type thing on top of my choice of the "fuck you, you're australian therefore we demand more of your money" charge[footnote]This, somehow, literally doubles the cost of the game.[/footnote] or the cost of postage from another country (considerably cheaper but involves waiting 6-12 days for shipping) then, basicially, they can take my potential business and shove it straight up their potential asses. Just to be clear, that is to say I wouldn't buy those games.

 

[Varrdy]

Tables and cars don't take well over a hundred million dollars to make, distribute, and advertise.

Are you kidding? Tables, sure, but almost every new car designed costs a lot more than your average video game! Design, specifications, marketing, re-tooling of the factories, paying the workforce, part manufacture, engine production....I could go on.

Each and every new car on the market today is very likely to have cost the manufacturer some serious coin to get from the drawing board to the end of the production line. $100million? Ford probably spent that and more on the Focus alone.

Wardy

 

[oplinger]

...It's just 10 dollars. Also that's really really old, project 10 dollar has been around for what? a year now?

Seriously ...it's 10 dollars. ....Who cares? I mean yeah feel free to argue that you could use 10 dollars for lots of things like...toothpaste, or gum balls. But at the end of the day, they didn't surprise you with it. >.> You don't need games. You don't need to spend the extra 10 dollars..

Mind sending me ten dollars? It'd help me out a lot. It's just ten dollars!

Will I get access to your multiplayer? Or various other features?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

...It's just 10 dollars. Also that's really really old, project 10 dollar has been around for what? a year now?

Seriously ...it's 10 dollars. ....Who cares? I mean yeah feel free to argue that you could use 10 dollars for lots of things like...toothpaste, or gum balls. But at the end of the day, they didn't surprise you with it. >.> You don't need games. You don't need to spend the extra 10 dollars..

Mind sending me ten dollars? It'd help me out a lot. It's just ten dollars!

Will I get access to your multiplayer? Or various other features?

Does it matter? You've already called it an insignificant amount of money. XD

 

[deckai]

And that's why I hate EA.. they are incredible dicks..

And all the people who say "hey that's their right".. you all are blinded by consumerism... how many things exist where you have to pay the original manufacture when you buy something used... "Hey I bought this used shirts.. but to be able to use them I have to pay Calvin Klein"

Oh and let's not forget.. everyone thinks that: "A" buys from company "B" a game for 40 bucks and sells it later to "C" for 20 bucks = "B" lost 20 Bucks. But no "B" still made 40 bucks, and "A" has again 20 bucks to spent on videogames...which can be used to buy games from "B".

What EA does is just greedy, simple as that. Wanting money for something they technically sold already is not only cheeky but borderline criminal. And I can't understand how anyone can accept this.

 

[Sgt. Dante]

I'm pretty sure that if you buy the game new you get the online for free.
At least, that's how it was with my last EA multiplayer game.

It is a tactic to get money from people who buy used games.

thank you for summarizing the points I made in original post

So why are you complaining? You don't have to pay anything.

Yes, but I like to buy used games and I like EA games and I don't want to pay for content that's already on the disc. I'm rallying for my gamer brothers.

Why should they? A used sale gives them the same amount of money that a pirated copy does. They have every right to withhold content in used copies to encourage people to buy it new so they can make a profit.

No, they should encourage people to buy new, not punish the impoverished for buying used. Like Dragon Age 2: I pre-ordered so I'm getting a fuck ton of extra goodies and exclusive weapons. That's the right way to do it.

Or you could probably buy it when it goes down in price and spend $10 on that stuff as DLC. It's not like they make you pay for it. If you like the game enough then you can buy it, if not don't worry. the game is still perfectly playble wihtout that stuff.

 

[Sgt. Dante]

And that's why I hate EA.. they are incredible dicks..

And all the people who say "hey that's their right".. you all are blinded by consumerism... how many things exist where you have to pay the original manufacture when you buy something used... "Hey I bought this used shirts.. but to be able to use them I have to pay Calvin Klein"

Oh and let's not forget.. everyone thinks that: "A" buys from company "B" a game for 40 bucks and sells it later to "C" for 20 bucks = "B" lost 20 Bucks. But no "B" still made 40 bucks, and "A" has again 20 bucks to spent on videogames...which can be used to buy games from "B".

What EA does is just greedy, simple as that. Wanting money for something they technically sold already is not only cheeky but borderline criminal. And I can't understand how anyone can accept this.

Not the same,

Buy now and receive this special item for free!!

What's that? you don't want it now? that's fine, it's a limited offer anyway, you can simply pay for it later if you want it. It'd be like complaing that the second hand shirt dodn't come with a waistcoat like it did in the shop. yes they're sold together but one does not entitle the other.

Just because 'Extra' content is on the disk doesn't mean that you have an immediate right to it, the source code is on the disk, so do you feel that you are allowed free access to it? This kinda stuff is an extra, they haven't sold it until you've 'bought' it from the XBLa store or PSN, and you are given a voucher code to get this stuff for free. If anything that's damned decent of them.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

You can't demand content for free, just because it's on the disc doesn't mean it's yours to use.

If you want to use EA servers and play the game online you have to pay $10 to do it because you bought it used; because you saved money on the purchase; because that's the only way they can get money from used sales.

It's a fair tactic but it doesn't prevent used sales and it usually does just lead to this sort of reaction meaning it's effectiveness is questionable.

 

[B2kCyclops]

I see this whole 10$ thing as a payment for server availability/maintainance...
Because running servers for todays games take a shitload of money, if provided by the companies...

Now, if they would guarantee(by contract/EULA) stable and running servers for 3 years or more after your purchase of the additional/online content and make the content free after said service is not longer guaranteed, then I would consider it an appropiate fee.

But, they don't.

And most of them deny any servers run by users.

So, I say: Fuck 'em.

I don't buy games that cost over 30 Euros, never have, never will.
Well, exept special editions... ;-)

Now here's a tip for you greedy publishers whos releases are to 80% overpriced, repetetive, unimagetive crap(EA and Ubisoft in particular):

Make more special editions with figurines, gimmicks, posters, maps, tin "jewelry", soundtracks, artbooks and other cheap to produce stuff.
It won't/can't be resold at GameStop and alike, and your proft margin will show at least 20-30% more money...

The customers will be even more likely to buy your product brandnew and buy even part 24 of your shitty franchise with glee.

Just as an idea...

-m.h.

[small]-typos edited-[/small]

 

[-Samurai-]

...It's just 10 dollars. Also that's really really old, project 10 dollar has been around for what? a year now?

Seriously ...it's 10 dollars. ....Who cares? I mean yeah feel free to argue that you could use 10 dollars for lots of things like...toothpaste, or gum balls. But at the end of the day, they didn't surprise you with it. >.> You don't need games. You don't need to spend the extra 10 dollars..

Mind sending me ten dollars? It'd help me out a lot. It's just ten dollars!

Will I get access to your multiplayer? Or various other features?

That's, uh.....nevermind. His mulitplayer :0

OT: I honestly don't mind project 10 dollar. I've bought a few used and new EA games with the intention of playing single player only. If I feel like playing multiplayer, I buy the code. The $10 plus the low price I bought the used game for still has me at less than half the price of a new copy.

When I know I'll be playing online, I buy new. I get the code, I get to open a new game(which I love doing), and the code usually ensure some free future DLC, and/or some extra unlocks. Hell, Bad Company 2 Ultimate Edition gave me Battlefield 1943(1942) for free, all the DLC maps for free, and the Onslaught mode for free. Not a bad deal at all.