Et tu EA?

[drunken_munki]

...It's just 10 dollars.

That's a good justification for bad consumerism.

Exactly...

 

[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.

Nope. Them doing this reduces the value of your game.

You, the consumer, lose out - because they remove how much value you can reclaim from your game by reselling it. Selling your games after purchase is a perfectly legal thing to do, what the company is doing - is trying to take money from your pocket without giving you anything new.

Sure when you buy the game you get exactly the same as it would have made, but if you want to sell it on the company double dips and removes money from you again.

What the company is trying to do, is make money off of their IP in an area that holds a larger market share. You're assuming they're driven by money, let's not assume they're out to get you.

Also since we are discussing relativistics like value, let me explain what your game is worth. Ready to hear it? It's worth what someone else says it's worth. See what that means? It's not a set amount, we have no formula. Gamestop does, but other shops use a different one. Steve the game collector might give you 40 bucks for the game you picked up used for 12. So you can go ahead and believe what you want about the value of your game, the value of your 10 dollars, and the value of the features they leave out. That's not my, or their, problem. It's on you.

Also most people wait until a game is way below its "value" they'll pick up a game used for 20 bucks, when many people bought it for 50-60. Which is all well and good. Do we commend them on their good deal? Or do we condemn them for being cheap?

See? You're arguing subjectivity. -my- game has not gone down in any value, because I think it's worth the 10 bucks. Just like my 10 bucks is losing value by just handing it to you, because I believe so.

Couple that with the fact that the publisher/developer needs a way to make more money, as with movies and music (theaters/concerts). I say this is a pretty decent solution. No, not optimal, but it is decent.

 

[oplinger]

Except here they're doing it at the expense of their customers. They're selling you an inferior product, customers should be expected to be annoyed.

Okay, I've really been trying to let this one go, but that point is just asinine, who else's expenses would it be at for -whatever- they did? If they made better games, they use more money to make it, so it must sell more, or they have to jack up the price. If it doesn't sell more, they aren't going to do that next time, and we get inferior games. If we pay more, they make more money and do what they want anyway. Games are taking more and more money to make. This was bound to happen, I'd like to think we saw it coming.

No shit, I'm clearly already saying this.

Sadly no, you're implying value is an exact standard we all go by, not an arbitrary word.

Relative to the person buying YOUR used game, its now worth less - because they have to pay more to get the full game. So effectively, the consumer is going to expect to have used games significantly cheaper. If businesses don't lower the price I'd be very surprised if demand didn't drop.

You get what you pay for I guess, eh?

So allow me to explain how this works.

You purchase a game for the price of 80 dollars brand new. The game has a "ten dollar bonus" which is really stuff you expect to get anyway.

You finish the game and decide you didn't enjoy the multiplayer - and go to trade it in.

You used to get say - 40 dollars trade in if you did it fairly quickly. Now if a customer buys a second hand game, he's going to have to pay an additional ten dollars. Making the idea of a trade in less desirable. Because there is now less demand for it, the price of the traded in game will have to drop. However, gamestop decides they don't want to suddenly start losing money, so they simply start paying less for used games.

Now who loses out here?

The publisher gets an additional ten dollars from a market base he previously had nothing to do with. The game retailer earns around the same money, perhaps a slight loss or game depending how they handle it (probably loss). The guy buying the game will probably pay the same amount, the market already decided what these games are worth, after all.

The person who loses out is the guy who paid full price and now wants to trade in his game.

You're being sold inferior products.

I don't really know what Gamestop is like where you are, but a brand new game usually nets me about 10-15 dollars in store credit. If they're feeling nice. Trading it in isn't worth it anyway. Unless you're just aiming to get rid of it.

Also you could say he's getting screwed like that for just about any game. If he pays full price, and doesn't think it was worth it...

Why would you condemn people for buying a product? They didn't force the retailers to lower the price - the value of the game dropped as the market decided it should - and the people paid the CORRECT amount of money for it.

For someone talking about relativism you don't seem to care for it.

The point is, those used games are now going to be worth LESS!

It was to point out the relative nature of it. They're buying the game for cheap, but the guy who buys it new is supporting the developer, and the publisher who gave the developer money. And they got all the full features. So why does a guy who doesn't support the industry get all the benefits of the industry?

We've seen that argument. That's condemning them for "buying a product" also as for "correct" amount. No, due to how relative value is...there is no "correct" amount. Again with the exact standard. There's only what we feel is reasonable. Not correct.

However they should drop in value as time goes on, but for different reasons. That's not really the point though. The point is even at a lower price you're not supporting the industry. Which some people find is a problem when most devs operate at a loss and pray for a big hit. Now buying used has a way for you to support the industry, which nullifies the vilifying of people who buy used games.

Nope, your game has gone down in value. You still get the same amount of enjoyment out of it, but its resale value has suffered. How can you not see this?

It's value has not gone down to me. It's only gone down to others. I don't have to trade in or sell my game if I don't find the price worth the enjoyment I get out of it. You apparently only see value in one way. However the value of a product is a tango between the buyer and the seller. Either one of them may choose not to buy/sell. The resale value is also variable, or rather, subjective from seller to seller. What do people do when the game is too expensive? They wait till the price drops, or the buyer comes to a compromise and makes a deal. You're being kind of silly about it, and you're confusing value to a consumer, to a bottom line.

No. See. They don't.

If videogames were a non-profitable business they wouldn't exist.

All other forms of media and market accept resale losses (when the thing isn;t a license).

Music doesn;t charge people buying used to listen to the bonus tracks. Car manufacturers don't take part of the sale. The publishers are screwing over the consumers. If the consumers decide they don't care, then I guess it's fine.

EA actually operates at a loss, they're in debt right now, and were a year or two ago (only even more so) they are slowly digging themselves out of that hole....know why? Charging people a tiny fee for things they want. Video games are profitable, but we kick and scream any time a business wants to make a profit, we'd rather them operate at a huge loss and never go under. Sadly that's not how it works.

Music has concerts, the bands and labels gain tons of revenue based on live performances, TV deals, movie deals, it's all there to make them make more money. And at whose expense? The consumer. We pay more for concert tickets, why? Because we think it's worth it. Different bands get different prices. We still pay the money, and we may even complain. But it's still at our expense.

Movies? They have movie theaters. You can't really see a movie anywhere else until it's released. So they make tons of cash in the box office. Tons. DVD sales are just extra, not to mention the money TV networks will pay to show their movie. ...And at whose expense? The consumer. Movie ticket prices have gone up, cost of home media? Up. We pay for it in the end. We always do, always will.

 

[Timmibal]

Ok. Couple of things first off. This argument of game disks as physical medium and thus different from digital sales? Stop it. If you can obtain the same title from digital download you need to quit right there, because your disc has become just another distribution method. You pay a bit more to cover manufacturing and stocking. Only difference. Done. Move on.

Secondly. From the developers perspective, Penny Arcade was right. There is no difference between someone who buys a bootleg and someone who buys a resale. Not because they are both fueled by satan or other such moralistic trash, but because both methods deny income to the owner of the IP.

And yes, comparing a bootleg to a resale IS a valid argument from the perspective of the developer, ESPECIALLY considering most games can be purchased via digital download, even when out of print. Resales are in DIRECT COMPETITION with new games, and unlike common perceptions of file sharing, purchase of a resale does in fact (unlike filesharing) constitute a definate lost sale for the producers.

Lastly for the moment, Books are a bad analogy. Books have a limited print count, and copies are sold directly to the retailer. The publisher and vicariously, the writer, has recieved their money before a single copy is sold. If enough demand is met, reprints can be done of the work, which are again sold directly to the retailers. The necessity of demand is why titles are sometimes 'out of print'. This does not happen with a digital medium.

I'll go into a bit more detail later. Just wanted to get that out.

 

[Continuity]

Secondly. From the developers perspective, Penny Arcade was right. There is no difference between someone who buys a bootleg and someone who buys a resale. Not because they are both fueled by satan or other such moralistic trash, but because both methods deny income to the owner of the IP.

Any yet nobody gives a damn when its music, books, or movies... But somehow its ok for game companies to be this greedy?
I know there are some differences in the economics of supply here but I really don't see why that has a material bearing.

 

[oplinger]

Secondly. From the developers perspective, Penny Arcade was right. There is no difference between someone who buys a bootleg and someone who buys a resale. Not because they are both fueled by satan or other such moralistic trash, but because both methods deny income to the owner of the IP.

Any yet nobody gives a damn when its music, books, or movies... But somehow its ok for game companies to be this greedy?
I know there are some differences in the economics of supply here but I really don't see why that has a material bearing.

I'm sorry. What? Nobody gives a damn when it's music, books, or movies?

Remember Napster? That was a whole lot of giving a damn. Hell movies give a damn, they're really strict with the distribution to theaters. They both even tried their own DRM. But they have ways of earning the money back, fall back plans. Them giving a damn is what made them figure that out. It's just normal to them now, and they've compensated for projected losses.

Game companies don't have much of a fall back plan. It's a much bigger deal to them.

 

[oplinger]

If companies are operating at a loss than they have to work to turn that around.

That is all. Good day. Thank you for understanding.

 

[Continuity]

Secondly. From the developers perspective, Penny Arcade was right. There is no difference between someone who buys a bootleg and someone who buys a resale. Not because they are both fueled by satan or other such moralistic trash, but because both methods deny income to the owner of the IP.

Any yet nobody gives a damn when its music, books, or movies... But somehow its ok for game companies to be this greedy?
I know there are some differences in the economics of supply here but I really don't see why that has a material bearing.

I'm sorry. What? Nobody gives a damn when it's music, books, or movies?

Remember Napster? That was a whole lot of giving a damn. Hell movies give a damn, they're really strict with the distribution to theaters. They both even tried their own DRM. But they have ways of earning the money back, fall back plans. Them giving a damn is what made them figure that out. It's just normal to them now, and they've compensated for projected losses.

Game companies don't have much of a fall back plan. It's a much bigger deal to them.

NO, i'm sorry. PIRACY DOES NOT EQUATE TO THE SECOND HAND SALES MARKET. I'm sorry for the caps but as I just yelled at my monitor I think its appropriate to impress upon you the strength of my response.

 

[oplinger]

Secondly. From the developers perspective, Penny Arcade was right. There is no difference between someone who buys a bootleg and someone who buys a resale. Not because they are both fueled by satan or other such moralistic trash, but because both methods deny income to the owner of the IP.

Any yet nobody gives a damn when its music, books, or movies... But somehow its ok for game companies to be this greedy?
I know there are some differences in the economics of supply here but I really don't see why that has a material bearing.

I'm sorry. What? Nobody gives a damn when it's music, books, or movies?

Remember Napster? That was a whole lot of giving a damn. Hell movies give a damn, they're really strict with the distribution to theaters. They both even tried their own DRM. But they have ways of earning the money back, fall back plans. Them giving a damn is what made them figure that out. It's just normal to them now, and they've compensated for projected losses.

Game companies don't have much of a fall back plan. It's a much bigger deal to them.

NO, i'm sorry. PIRACY DOES NOT EQUATE TO THE SECOND HAND SALES MARKET. I'm sorry for the caps but as I just yelled at my monitor I think its appropriate to impress upon you the strength of my response.

As stated above, to a developer. Yes it does. You may be morally excused yes, that's the only difference.

And my examples work for both second hand sales and piracy. Music and movies are padded markets. Games are not.

 

[oplinger]

If companies are operating at a loss than they have to work to turn that around.

That is all. Good day. Thank you for understanding.

Good job ignoring my post. I offered the reason why you're wrong, despite the fact they're justified, if you'd care to read it.

Oh no I read the whole post. It's just that part of it kills the whole thing anyway. EA is operating at a loss, this is how they are working to turn that around. You saying that's what they should do ruins your argument. Especially since that's been my initial point. I'm sorry you took all the effort to type all of that out, but shot yourself in the foot. I really am. ...What can you do though?

Oh and on a side note, free market doesn't mean optimal prices. It means we're free to set our own prices. In a wider sense, we make it what we think people will pay, but ultimately we don't have to. Value in this case is completely arbitrary.

 

[manythings]

Steam solves this problem me thinks, its usually cheaper than boxes too.

Then lucky you, here in Ireland buying a solid copy usually saves me 20%, if not more. Always struck me as odd that. Still I'm getting PC games for ?40 or less.

 

[Continuity]

As stated above, to a developer. Yes it does. You may be morally excused yes, that's the only difference.

And my examples work for both second hand sales and piracy. Music and movies are padded markets. Games are not.

There is a big difference between piracy and the second hand market, and it is simply that the impact of second hand sales is very limited.

A person buys a game then sells it second hand - That potentially one lost sale for the developer, I say potentially because a lot of people buy more second hand than they would be able to afford to new, its not 1:1 math.

A person buys a game then posts a copy on bit torrent - That is potentially a limitless loss of sales for the developer, it could be one lost sale, it could be 100,000 lost sales.

Big difference. Yes the second hand market has some impact on new sales, it always has does for books and DVDs and CD's too. Yet you don't see these other entertainment industries trying to cash in on the second hand market. To be frank what right to they have to do that anyway? The game was bought - they get their cut, the fact that that one copy may be played by more than one person is just par for the course, i.e. its an accepted aspect of the market for any goods, from TVs to cars to computer games.

 

[oplinger]

Secondly. From the developers perspective, Penny Arcade was right. There is no difference between someone who buys a bootleg and someone who buys a resale. Not because they are both fueled by satan or other such moralistic trash, but because both methods deny income to the owner of the IP.

Any yet nobody gives a damn when its music, books, or movies... But somehow its ok for game companies to be this greedy?
I know there are some differences in the economics of supply here but I really don't see why that has a material bearing.

I'm sorry. What? Nobody gives a damn when it's music, books, or movies?

Remember Napster? That was a whole lot of giving a damn. Hell movies give a damn, they're really strict with the distribution to theaters. They both even tried their own DRM. But they have ways of earning the money back, fall back plans. Them giving a damn is what made them figure that out. It's just normal to them now, and they've compensated for projected losses.

Game companies don't have much of a fall back plan. It's a much bigger deal to them.

NO, i'm sorry. PIRACY DOES NOT EQUATE TO THE SECOND HAND SALES MARKET. I'm sorry for the caps but as I just yelled at my monitor I think its appropriate to impress upon you the strength of my response.

As stated above, to a developer. Yes it does. You may be morally excused yes, that's the only difference.

And my examples work for both second hand sales and piracy. Music and movies are padded markets. Games are not.

Why do you completely fail to understand that being able to resell something means it still has value?

Who said it didn't? ...Really? Where in that post did I say a resale has no value? Or in any post?

 

[veloper]

This is an easy one.

Buy used, then you are NOT a customer to the publisher, because none of that money you just wasted, goes to them.

Online servers continually cost money to keep online and are a service. They don't have to give room for free to non-customers.
While EA pulls alot of shit, this one is fair practise and good business sense.

 

[oplinger]

As stated above, to a developer. Yes it does. You may be morally excused yes, that's the only difference.

And my examples work for both second hand sales and piracy. Music and movies are padded markets. Games are not.

There is a big difference between piracy and the second hand market, and it is simply that the impact of second hand sales is very limited.

A person buys a game then sells it second hand - That potentially one lost sale for the developer, I say potentially because a lot of people buy more second hand than they would be able to afford to new, its not 1:1 math.

A person buys a game then posts a copy on bit torrent - That is potentially a limitless loss of sales for the developer, it could be one lost sale, it could be 100,000 lost sales.

Big difference. Yes the second hand market has some impact on new sales, it always has does for books and DVDs and CD's too. Yet you don't see these other entertainment industries trying to cash in on the second hand market. To be frank what right to they have to do that anyway? The game was bought - they get their cut, the fact that that one copy may be played by more than one person is just par for the course, i.e. its an accepted aspect of the market for any goods, from TVs to cars to computer games.

No no no, You're right but you're not looking from the right perspective, and skipping over a fact when comparing it to other industries. For piracy and for second hand sales, no matter how many there are, it's income the dev is not getting. To the developer, a second hand sale, and a pirated copy, are the same for their income. It doesn't matter how many there are.

Books don't really need to care much, books are different than games and movies, and even music. Not a fair comparison.

Movies and music are padded markets, like I mentioned. Concerts and movie theaters give them extra revenue, not to mention other forms of revenue, like tv/movie deals and band merchandise for music, or broadcast stations buying rights to publicly show movies. They all have a secondary (and tertiary) source of income that is pretty well know.

Games have....T-shirts? ...sometimes. It's not a padded market, or as well grounded as music or movies.

It's really not a fair comparison. If games had something for increased revenue, we wouldn't see things like this. What can games do though? ...Live LPs at your local concert hall? >_>

 

[Continuity]

No no no, You're right but you're not looking from the right perspective, and skipping over a fact when comparing it to other industries. For piracy and for second hand sales, no matter how many there are, it's income the dev is not getting. To the developer, a second hand sale, and a pirated copy, are the same for their income. It doesn't matter how many there are.

Books don't really need to care much, books are different than games and movies, and even music. Not a fair comparison.

Movies and music are padded markets, like I mentioned. Concerts and movie theaters give them extra revenue, not to mention other forms of revenue, like tv/movie deals and band merchandise for music, or broadcast stations buying rights to publicly show movies. They all have a secondary (and tertiary) source of income that is pretty well know.

Games have....T-shirts? ...sometimes. It's not a padded market, or as well grounded as music or movies.

It's really not a fair comparison. If games had something for increased revenue, we wouldn't see things like this. What can games do though? ...Live LPs at your local concert hall? >_>

Well, you make good and valid points here that I hadn't really considered, but none the less billions of £ go into the computer games industry, the industry isn't poor. Sure games are expensive to make, but perhaps they just need to reduce costs then rather than try and extort more money out of their consumers.
To be honest i'm against any method of milking consumers for more money after the sale. If I buy a game I don't want to have to then buy half the content as "DLC", nor to I want to have to pay for online services - they cant even justify that really, just build dedicated server potential into the game and the community will do the damn hosting - its all just profiteering.

 

[oplinger]

No no no, You're right but you're not looking from the right perspective, and skipping over a fact when comparing it to other industries. For piracy and for second hand sales, no matter how many there are, it's income the dev is not getting. To the developer, a second hand sale, and a pirated copy, are the same for their income. It doesn't matter how many there are.

Books don't really need to care much, books are different than games and movies, and even music. Not a fair comparison.

Movies and music are padded markets, like I mentioned. Concerts and movie theaters give them extra revenue, not to mention other forms of revenue, like tv/movie deals and band merchandise for music, or broadcast stations buying rights to publicly show movies. They all have a secondary (and tertiary) source of income that is pretty well know.

Games have....T-shirts? ...sometimes. It's not a padded market, or as well grounded as music or movies.

It's really not a fair comparison. If games had something for increased revenue, we wouldn't see things like this. What can games do though? ...Live LPs at your local concert hall? >_>

Well, you make good and valid points here that I hadn't really considered, but none the less billions of £ go into the computer games industry, the industry isn't poor. Sure games are expensive to make, but perhaps they just need to reduce costs then rather than try and extort more money out of their consumers.
To be honest i'm against any method of milking consumers for more money after the sale. If I buy a game I don't want to have to then buy half the content as "DLC", nor to I want to have to pay for online services - they cant even justify that really, just build dedicated server potential into the game and the community will do the damn hosting - its all just profiteering.

The industry isn't poor, no. Sometimes the -volume- gets to them. Mega-publishers like EA? They sprinkle the cash around, 40 million here....80 million there. So if they have a catalog of 14 games, all say (we'll go with the median) 60 million (granted, that's on the high end) and all but one flops, say they make, half that, they're out 400 million almost. Now EA publishes a lot more than 14 games, of varying budgets. Most of them probably don't break even.

It's an industry based on hits, EA's proverbial CoD could carry the losses and they'd be fine. Hit a dry spell, and you have to resort to things like this. Reducing costs would only exacerbate the issue.

I'm not really saying it's the best solution out there, it's not. I can't think of anything realistically better though. I can see why they're doing it to. ...Eventually we'll have a good solution for it. ...Eventually XD

 

[veloper]

No no no, You're right but you're not looking from the right perspective, and skipping over a fact when comparing it to other industries. For piracy and for second hand sales, no matter how many there are, it's income the dev is not getting. To the developer, a second hand sale, and a pirated copy, are the same for their income. It doesn't matter how many there are.

Books don't really need to care much, books are different than games and movies, and even music. Not a fair comparison.

Movies and music are padded markets, like I mentioned. Concerts and movie theaters give them extra revenue, not to mention other forms of revenue, like tv/movie deals and band merchandise for music, or broadcast stations buying rights to publicly show movies. They all have a secondary (and tertiary) source of income that is pretty well know.

Games have....T-shirts? ...sometimes. It's not a padded market, or as well grounded as music or movies.

It's really not a fair comparison. If games had something for increased revenue, we wouldn't see things like this. What can games do though? ...Live LPs at your local concert hall? >_>

Well, you make good and valid points here that I hadn't really considered, but none the less billions of £ go into the computer games industry, the industry isn't poor. Sure games are expensive to make, but perhaps they just need to reduce costs then rather than try and extort more money out of their consumers.
To be honest i'm against any method of milking consumers for more money after the sale. If I buy a game I don't want to have to then buy half the content as "DLC", nor to I want to have to pay for online services - they cant even justify that really, just build dedicated server potential into the game and the community will do the damn hosting - its all just profiteering.

We'd prefer dedicated servers, but as consumers we can't make devs to design games to our specifications. Maybe if we paid millions in advance and placed an order, but that's a fantasy.

As such their servers are a service that costs money to maintain and they may charge for them.
It's all about profit; it's a business. It's not unfair.
As consumers we only choose can buy or not buy.

 

[irani_che]

this would be okay as games like bulletstorm and dead space are played primarily for their campaign,

Battlefield 3 better be sold at a reduced price for the cds if i have to fork over another $10 buck for the multiplayer

 

[JaymesFogarty]

My pass for DS2 was free, but yeah, why does this exist?

Unlike making things such as cars or films, there are ongoing costs for games even after it's released. Someone has to pay for bandwidth and a dedicated server, and any patches that are released to add content or improve the game. If you make a car, the second it's shipped you stop paying costs for it. With a game, developers must continue to fund online support for it, even if it's passed on to someone else second-hand.