Et tu EA?

[Ralphfromdk]

Here's a way to look at it.

Every time some one is about to buy a new copy of Shooter Guy 5, but then gets an offer to buy it for 15$ less, most times he will do that.
Every time this happens, the publishers loose that sale, that would have been there if it wasn't for the used games.

And less money for the publishers / developers, means less good games, maybe even studios closing. Maybe those last 10.000(random number i picked)used copies made the difference between the studio dying and keeping making games.

For this very reason I buy all my games new. I want said developer to make more games for me.
Unless of course it's and old game or what not. Those might not be around in new copies, but then there's no loss for the company that made it anyway.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Here's a way to look at it.

Every time some one is about to buy a new copy of Shooter Guy 5, but then gets an offer to buy it for 15$ less, most times he will do that.
Every time this happens, the publishers loose that sale, that would have been there if it wasn't for the used games.

And less money for the publishers / developers, means less good games, maybe even studios closing. Maybe those last 10.000(random number i picked)used copies made the difference between the studio dying and keeping making games.

For this very reason I buy all my games new. I want said developer to make more games for me.
Unless of course it's and old game or what not. Those might not be around in new copies, but then there's no loss for the company that made it anyway.

Question: would the publisher sell the game for $15 less in the absence of the used market? Because if paying MSRP was my only option, I'd find a cheaper hobby, and they'd be out a customer for life, instead of for the occasional title which I buy used instead of new and on sale.

 

[snowfi6916]

If the only reason you buy a game is for the strength of the multi-player, then you shouldn't have bought the game.

To quote Yahtzee, "a game needs to stand up on its own with just the single player".

 

[deckai]

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.

But they sell it together and you can't buy it seperate...and well you cant sell it seperate. One thing is tied to 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.

Than tell me why did they make the effort to hold the game back and add the "extra" "free" stuff? And the limit-time only thing is just a bad and cheeky marketing trick. And beside that's not the point, DLC is another thing but, let's say I bought the full game for 60 bucks, but only want to play the singleplayer campaign... but I still had to pay the whole 60 bucks for something that may be only worth 50-60% of the content I payed for ... and I can't even sell the game for 40% of the original price (which would be more than a fair resale value) because I would have to cut the 10$ from my price to be able to sell it on the used market. So EA would have made 70 bucks from A(one) single copy while I could only sell the game for 20$ instead of 30$.

[[And for the record I rarely buy used games anymore and never sell them, so I'm not really affected by their policy but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them.]]

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Sorry to mutilate your post like this, but it helps me to write in a less rant-like manner.

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.

Really? Because I've always seen it more as the physical disc being mine and that I paid company x to play the contents of the disc. You don't own whatever software is stored on that disc, you simply own the right and ability to play what you paid for.

And as I said, the extra content might be on the disc but is still doesn't change the fact that the extra content was put there specifically to reward players who purchase it brand new. If you purchase second hand then you aren't entitled to play that extra content; think of it as the V.I.P. are of a club.

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.

Exactly! And to keep this multiplayer running developers are going to need money. It's perfectly fair for EA to charge a $10 fee. Most PC games can't even be sold second hand, which is a shame because I'd gladly pay less for World of Warcraft but then pay a small fee for a new product key from Blizzard. Of course if you'd bought it brand new then you wouldn't have to pay the $10 because the full cost of the new copy would have covered this.

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.

But why shouldn't they make a profit? That's right, they have been paid for it, but not by you. The person who bought it brand new paid for the right to use the extras and online. You've paid a fraction of that (none of which went towards publishers or developers) and so your experience is limited to what you paid for.

You don't pay the publisher every time you buy a used book, do you?

You're assuming that both forms of media work similarly. When you purchase a book you own that physical copy of that book, that book is now yours. You can sell that book but you can't sell the ideas within the book.

Here's how I feel:
Someone who purchased the game first hand has paid a percentage to the publisher. If they then sell that game they are knowingly selling you the game without the features they bought it with. You can point the finger at whoever you like; consumers for being so entititled or publishers for being greedy or even the distributors for knowingly selling you this.

But it all comes down to this: EA have decided that they want to make money from second hand sales of their intellectual property. Distributors are simply doing their job: distributing. Consumers are doing their job: consuming. Smart consumers will see that like it or not things won't change and will either fork up the $10 for the activation/online pass or will purchase brand new.

 

[Dogstile]

Ok, heres a position i've not seen in the two pages i've read. No i'm not reading the rest, I don't have the time right now.

Me and a friend pooled our money and brought dead space two. It came with a code and only one of us can play online.

We brought it new, we paid the same, but one of us cannot use the same amount of content as the other. How is that fair? The game wouldn't have gotten brought new if we didn't buy it together.

>.> It's just greedy

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Ok, heres a position i've not seen in the two pages i've read. No i'm not reading the rest, I don't have the time right now.

Me and a friend pooled our money and brought dead space two. It came with a code and only one of us can play online.

We brought it new, we paid the same, but one of us cannot use the same amount of content as the other. How is that fair? The game wouldn't have gotten brought new if we didn't buy it together.

>.> It's just greedy

Yeah... but only one of you can use it at any given time right?

 

[Dogstile]

Ok, heres a position i've not seen in the two pages i've read. No i'm not reading the rest, I don't have the time right now.

Me and a friend pooled our money and brought dead space two. It came with a code and only one of us can play online.

We brought it new, we paid the same, but one of us cannot use the same amount of content as the other. How is that fair? The game wouldn't have gotten brought new if we didn't buy it together.

>.> It's just greedy

Yeah... but only one of you can use it at any given time right?

Yeah, except only one of us can play the multiplayer. Considering we have separate xbox live accounts.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Yeah, except only one of us can play the multiplayer. Considering we have separate xbox live accounts.

I want to say it's your fault for splitting it and buying together; but I really don't blame you. I used to do the same up until I got a decent enough paying job. I guess this is where it's true flaw is, you need to fork out an extra $10 for a feature you've already paid for.

 

[Kroxile]

*yawn* moral of the story is: don't buy used games.

 

[carpathic]

...It's just 10 dollars.

That's a good justification for bad consumerism.

Durn tootin'.

I just generally avoid games that have this sort of cost associated with them. I have never even bought a used game, but when developers try to change my behaviour, or assume I am going to steal from them, then I just don't buy their products.

Kant was right, sometimes the reasons why people do what they do matter.

 

[mrdude2010]

...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..

it's ridiculous. it's an extra charge that was never there before. if someone just started charging you an extra 20% of the cost for features you already "purchased" you would be pissed off too... imagine if you had to pay an extra $6 to wear a shirt outside? that would be fucking retarded. that is the equivalent of this

 

[squid5580]

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.

Lol there is a big difference between not being allowed to sell and them making it more inconvenient for you to sell. If you are so intent on making this out to be a problem you really need to come up with better counterpoints. Afterall they have the law on their side as well. They are allowed to charge you whatever they want. They aren't pulling a bait and switch. They aren't hiding the fact you will have to pay for this if you buy it used. And as for the resale value that you will have to take up with Gamestop or reasonable facimile. They set the used game prices not EA or the devs.

And what do they care if you buy a game with the intentions of selling it within a few weeks? They make the money off the first sale and lose them by the lost profits of the second. Meanwhile the people who do profit are the people who don't deserve it because they didn't have anything to do with the game. They are the ones getting rich off of it.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Sorry to mutilate your post like this, but it helps me to write in a less rant-like manner.

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.

Really? Because I've always seen it more as the physical disc being mine and that I paid company x to play the contents of the disc. You don't own whatever software is stored on that disc, you simply own the right and ability to play what you paid for.

And as I said, the extra content might be on the disc but is still doesn't change the fact that the extra content was put there specifically to reward players who purchase it brand new. If you purchase second hand then you aren't entitled to play that extra content; think of it as the V.I.P. are of a club.

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.

Exactly! And to keep this multiplayer running developers are going to need money. It's perfectly fair for EA to charge a $10 fee. Most PC games can't even be sold second hand, which is a shame because I'd gladly pay less for World of Warcraft but then pay a small fee for a new product key from Blizzard. Of course if you'd bought it brand new then you wouldn't have to pay the $10 because the full cost of the new copy would have covered this.

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.

But why shouldn't they make a profit? That's right, they have been paid for it, but not by you. The person who bought it brand new paid for the right to use the extras and online. You've paid a fraction of that (none of which went towards publishers or developers) and so your experience is limited to what you paid for.

You don't pay the publisher every time you buy a used book, do you?

You're assuming that both forms of media work similarly. When you purchase a book you own that physical copy of that book, that book is now yours. You can sell that book but you can't sell the ideas within the book.

Here's how I feel:
Someone who purchased the game first hand has paid a percentage to the publisher. If they then sell that game they are knowingly selling you the game without the features they bought it with. You can point the finger at whoever you like; consumers for being so entititled or publishers for being greedy or even the distributors for knowingly selling you this.

But it all comes down to this: EA have decided that they want to make money from second hand sales of their intellectual property. Distributors are simply doing their job: distributing. Consumers are doing their job: consuming. Smart consumers will see that like it or not things won't change and will either fork up the $10 for the activation/online pass or will purchase brand new.

You know, I'm getting tired of this argument, so this is the last thing I'm going to post: EULAs are Bull. Shit. I own the disc, therefore I own whatever is on it, end of discussion. I do not own the copyright to that content, but beyond that, it's mine. If we were having this discussion even five years ago, there would not have been a single person taking your side.


Edit: And as for why they shouldn't make a profit off of the used copy, it's because it's no longer theirs, they already sold it on. If a painter sold me a print of one of his paintings, would I be obliged to give him a cut if I sold it on? No, of course not.
So don't expect me to bend over and pay EA or any game company for something that is no longer theirs. [sub]Don't expect me to pirate it either, but EA isn't getting any of my money any time soon, at least not for Project $10 games.[/sub]

 

[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?

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

...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?

You'll get exactly the same thing you would have without sending me ten dollars.

(The same as if they'd never invented this whole online code).

Flawed arguments on both ends.

1. Yes, 10 dollars is not a lot, not even close to a lot, it's pretty insignificant. For what they're asking. He's asking me to give him money for absolutely nothing. Which then makes the value of my 10 dollars worth more to me, as I could use it to say...buy features in a game I like, or give it to him, or a hobo, or some Santa Claus with a bell... For absolutely nothing but maybe saving face with my creator.

2. It's not exactly the same thing, as if I didn't send you the 10 dollars, in the deal I'd technically have gotten a net loss of 0, rather than 10. And if they never did the online code, they wouldn't get 10 dollars. The major difference is they're giving me something for my 10, you're not. The only thing that's the same is I have the option to tell both of you no, I'll keep my 10 dollars.

 

[F-I-D-O]

But they're still fucking a legitimate consumer out of extra money. He didn't steal the game, he bought it a few months after it came out after someone else played it.
Also, DLC may be made between when the game is finished and shipped. You're getting extra stuff, not being denied a complete product.

You're not being denied a complete product, you're getting extra optional material that you do not need to play the functioning game. You're simply being charged for buying used, a measely 10 dollars, the person who bought new probably ended up giving them more than 10 dollars in the long run, and they got all the optional features as a bonus.

But which will you play more?
Also, Call of Duty has a campaign, but it's lasting quality is clearly multiplayer.

Doesn't matter which I play more, the game is still functional even if they gave me multiplayer over single player. But it's be silly for them to charge me for single player I don't want, they have to make it interesting for me. So they do it to multiplayer, as it costs upkeep. Also if I bought it for the multiplayer, then I'd give them the 10 bucks, as I'm still getting it cheaper than buying it new if I played my cards right.

But isn't multiplayer part of a functioning game? And am I not being denied part of a functioning part of a game?

No you're not being denied anything, you bought it used, which means you paid the developer and publisher nothing but you're still able to play a large portion of the game. So whatever entitlement you think you have you don't.

The multilayer costs money to upkeep with severs and all that nonsense, you gave them nothing so you don't get access to that function there's no arguing here. It's called intensive, buy two get one free, did you buy two? Yes? You get one free! No? You get nothing.

It's a big company with lots of people and they all worked hard to make a game and they want you to pay for it. Buying used means you didn't pay them at all.

That doesn't mean they get to treat me like a criminal. I'm well aware that publishers and developers make no distinction between those who pirate and those who buy games used, but we're not the same. Am I really a bad person just because I want to save a few bucks?

No one is treating you like a criminal, let me explain this to you more simple.

You buy used game, money goes ONLY TO GAMESTOP and NOT EA.

You are saving a few bucks yes, but you are NOT paying EA for what they made, you are paying gamestop for the game. So the 10 dollars EA is asking you to pay, is to get something out of that used game sale because otherwise they get NOTHING. So if you want to save a few bucks, expect to get less content.

Think of it as buying a used gameboy, you saved a few bucks but you're missing the battery cover for it.

Not if you bought one in decent condition. It's more like you bought a used Gameboy, but Nintendo has a deal with the seller to withhold the speakers, the headphone jack, and the battery cover until you give them a cut of the profit. It's not like you need any of those to play games...

[sub]I told you I was willing to argue this.[/sub]

Okay, I have no idea how you and the OP are skipping over this point, buying used IS NOT PAYING THE DEVELOPER. You're basically paying for a pirated copy at this point because the developer makes no money so you are NOT entitled to things that you didn't pay THEM for.

I'm not yelling here, I'm just tired of typing the same thing and want these points to be well set. The developer is using the DLC to make SOMETHING out of the used game, because otherwise they don't make a cent. It's a choice that you gotta make, can you live with out the DLC? Yes? Then go ahead get it used, but if you want everything, buy it used.

We aren't skipping over the point, you're failing to recognize that the developer has already been paid, by the original owner of that game. I really don't understand how you guys can do that. Also, we have bold, italic, and underlined tags. There's no need to go all caps if you aren't yelling.

Bold requires tags and my hands are occupied with frenchfries.

Yes, the previous owner paid for that, but you're not giving anything to the developer. And they want SOME money out of this. Is this right? ehhhh Honestly I don't care, it's a simple fact, do you want that extra content? Buy it new. Think of it as the special edition to a movie, you want those extra scenes then you gotta pay.

But the thing is, this is an OPTION. You can say "I want and I deserve" all you want but you get what you pay for, and no ones forcing you to pay the extra 10 bucks, you're making that choice.

Again, if you feel it's wrong, don't buy the game at all. I think DRM is absolute bullshit and I refuse to pay for that garbage, and I won't buy the game. There, I've avoided the DRM and the developer doesn't get shit from me. *shrug*

Quoted mostly for the french fry bit. For some reason, it made me laugh.
I loved the gameboy bit. It's not them taking apart the gameboy. Maybe it's a gameboy with a copy of pokemon, but no linking cable. Is pokemon playable without the linking cable? Yes. But, if you want to trade with friends, you need the cable.
Developers/publishers want money. DLC goes directly to them. Developers/publishers only get about 10 dollars. Hence, project 10 dollar
For crying out load, if you're complaining about price, then WAIT.
Wait for a sale
Wait for the price to go down
Wait for a friend to give it to you
Wait until you don't care anymore
Just wait.
Most used games only cost around 50 dollars. With project 10 dollar (which is an option mind you), it comes up to 60.
Gaming is an optional hobby. Project 10 dollar helps publishers stay alive, so gaming continues to evolve and exist. Don't like it? Don't buy EA games. It's that simple.

Not really. As I said earlier, if you get a used gameboy in good condition (not hard, as they were built like tanks and there actually are people out there who know how to take care of their stuff) it's going to have everything with the possible exception of the original packaging -- and that was meant to be thrown out. A better metaphor is that you bought a used gameboy, but nintendo has a deal with the seller to rip out the speaker, the headphone jack, and the battery cover, and then only give it back to you if you pay a "small" fee to Nintendo for each of these parts. It's not like you actually need any of those parts to play the games...

Well, seeing as speakers are pretty much necessary...
There is a difference between "Pay 10 dollars so your game has sound" and "Pay 10 dollars to go online". Mass Effect 2 has a 10 dollar dlc pack with new missions, Dragon's age had a 15 dollar dlc pack with a new character and mission. Bought new? Enter the code, you have bonus content. Like a little good for you medal. Bought used? Do you want the bonus content? Y/N
Y-Pay a little bit for content that isn't necessary, but gives some extra advantages (ex: Shale)
N-Congratulations! You have a FULL GAME.
Just Cause 2 has a lot of 3 dollar dlc. You don't need a super jet or cluster bomb launcher for Just Cause 2. But you can buy this extra piece. That's all project 10 dollar is.
For online, it's so the servers keep running. Don't want it, don't buy it. Multiplayer is an optional feature, but we take if for granted. You have a single player game.
Project 10 dollar isn't evil, it's just a compromise.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

You know, I'm getting tired of this argument, so this is the last thing I'm going to post: EULAs are Bull. Shit. I own the disc, therefore I own whatever is on it, end of discussion. I do not own the copyright to that content, but beyond that, it's mine. If we were having this discussion even five years ago, there would not have been a single person taking your side.

Good work, just ignore everything else and rage on that.

But honestly you can spew all you want about how software license agreements are bull shit. As the video game industry gets bigger and move lucrative, companies will be trying to find more and more ways to protect and regulate their intellectual property. The EULA isn't going to fade into obscurity and become the court room jester; it's going to get stronger and more valid the more that software is widely distributed.

it's because it's no longer theirs, they already sold it on.

I own the disc, therefore I own whatever is on it, end of discussion. I do not own the copyright to that content, but beyond that, it's mine.

You keep reeling off this and similar things; but how you feel isn't how it works. You buy a game on a disc, you now own a physical disc with a playable copy of the game on it. You have the right to play the contents of the disc that were sold to you under the terms and conditions of the sale (like it or not); but the publisher still has and always will have supreme authority over the sale and use of the software on that disc. It is theirs.

If a painter sold me a print of one of his paintings, would I be obliged to give him a cut if I sold it on? No, of course not.

Also what's with these inept comparisons? Books, paintings, DVD; these mediums aren't akin to video games at all. All of these things are physical products which when bought are yours to do with as you please. Video games aren't a physical product, they're a software product/service.

 

[Katana314]

To extend what Azure said, do you honestly expect that you own every texture, every voice file, every bit of code, on the disc? That you have a "right" to use them all however you'd like? Quite simply, you get ACCESS to all that, and express permission to play the game. You couldn't suddenly re-sell those textures and voices as your own property, even if you were somehow deleting the original you kept.

One person earlier in the thread laid claim to how re-selling a used game doesn't take any sale effort on the part of the publisher, since they didn't burn a disc or package anything. That's true, but in reality, a NEW game doesn't take any sale effort from them. Those billions of dollars they spend on making games - how much of that budget do you think is spent on burning the copy? In the Digital Distribution world, the answer is in all ways ZERO, and it's not much higher in the boxed-copy world.

That is all different from anything like a car to a game boy to anything really physical. Those OBJECTS take some effort to produce, and use materials that could theoretically be in limited supply at some point.

 

[Snotnarok]

Snip

At least someone finally gets it, PJ$10 is a benefit of buying new, nothing more nothing less. It's the consumers decision to get one or the other it's nothing to do with the developer really.

What gets me steamed is when capcom put out RE5 then put out DLC a week later for 5 bucks that was already on the disc. That's just annoying.

 

[Outright Villainy]

Well, I'd say you should pay to play on their servers, but then, the person who traded in the game can't. It's how used sales works. Ownership transferred. Now if they allowed people to refund their online passes if they didn't want to use it anymore, then it's a capital idea.

Otherwise it's just nickel and diming bullshit.