Online Pass Is a Success, Says EA

BloodSquirrel

New member
Jun 23, 2008
1,263
0
0
Logan Westbrook said:
Brown's explanation will likely raise a few eyebrows, as buying a game pre-owned doesn't increase the pool of possible online players, it just swaps one out for another.
It replaces somebody who wasn't going to play, or who played and has now quit, (and thus sold the game) with somebody who is going to play.
 

Celtic_Kerr

New member
May 21, 2010
2,166
0
0
Keava said:
viranimus said:
Delusibeta said:
*snip*

I really worry about how people want to screw themselves and their kind, simply by buying the bullshit fed to them instead of standing up and saying HELL NO!
Problem is why, me as a customer who never even considers buying a second-hand game when there is a fresh copy available on shelf should even be bothered? It's you, after all, who decides to buy a used game for lower price so don't expect to get a full service -you- haven't paid for in the first place.

The funny thing is, when you buy used game you are pretty much getting scammed. You only buy a physical disc with the game on it, but the previous owner of the game still retains their right to use the online service. You must treat those two as separate products. For all you know he might have a pirated copy in his house and still be able to play because he still has right to it while all you get is a piece of plastic with digital data on it.
Well what they're pulling is no different from downloadable content. You buy the game fresh, you sometimes get a redemption code that allows you a certain piece of content. any future owner of that game disc must buy it. People will pay ten dollars for a 5-6 hour add-on to the single player story of the game, so why are you all bitching for a $10 pass that will get you online for as long as you want?

I don't buy used games, or I try not to. If i really want it, and it's used and I'll buy it used. If I want to play online, then it's my fault for buying a used copy of the game. It's for me to bit down and cough up.
 

BloodSquirrel

New member
Jun 23, 2008
1,263
0
0
fix-the-spade said:
Most games on console are managing 2-3 years before getting cut off, behemoths like Halo 2 only managed 5 and a bit. If a game is still getting a reasonable number of used sales and gamers stumping up their $10, it means the game will still be generating a revenue stream. Certainly a much more secure one than the slightly nebulous player number/advertising calculations.
I haven't heard of any 360 games on Xbox Live being cut. Halo 2 was only cut because it was an original Xbox game, and Microsoft wanted to change Live architecture past the point where original Xbox games would work.

Most games simply don't have enough community to sustain themselves, leaving everyone to quit altogether.
 

viranimus

Thread killer
Nov 20, 2009
4,952
0
0
Keava said:
viranimus said:
Delusibeta said:
*snip*

I really worry about how people want to screw themselves and their kind, simply by buying the bullshit fed to them instead of standing up and saying HELL NO!
Problem is why, me as a customer who never even considers buying a second-hand game when there is a fresh copy available on shelf should even be bothered? It's you, after all, who decides to buy a used game for lower price so don't expect to get a full service -you- haven't paid for in the first place.
Why? Because the issue itself, and the motivation for me to say what I did, is representative of a much greater problem that the consumer/industry are currently engaged in, and it boils down to post product sales.

It goes back to the old adage of bill collectors vs deadbeats "you cant get blood from a turnip" For every drop of blood you willingly relinquish, they will see it yielded blood and begin poking holes elsewhere.

Publishers think they are entitled to every drop of money they can milk out of you. When people willingly approve of something like this with their wallets it tells the publishers that you think it is acceptable to pay for this, and they will in turn begin to think this is an expected source of income and move on to another way to milk the customer out of money.

Look at online revenues. MMOs proved to publishers that Online can = money. So, they started trying to milk money out of people with DLC for stand alone games, which took a while to take off, but eventually proved profitable. Now that they are picking up occasional DLC hits, you see publishers now pushing to sell services like private server rentals, and paying extra for leaderboards, and ranking systems... for shooters.

Thats why even if your not effected by this issue because you buy new, you SHOULD be bothered, because whos to say if this takes off in a year or so, that EA gets a taste of this online access money and feels its justified to start charging all players a 10$ online access fee? If people keep giving up blood, Publishers will keep drilling deeper for it until the well runs dry, and the only way to stop it, is to stop giving up the blood.

EDIT: OT, not trying to sound accusatory. Simply trying to illustrate why everyone should be concerned with this. Not just people who buy used exclusively.
 

tehroc

New member
Jul 6, 2009
1,293
0
0
Logan Westbrook said:
Brown's explanation will likely raise a few eyebrows, as buying a game pre-owned doesn't increase the pool of possible online players, it just swaps one out for another. Moreover, for every pre-owned game that exists, someone has paid the full retail price, which would presumably cover the bandwidth costs.
Look it's another video game writer (not you Mr Westbrook your just reposting someone elses article) who doesn't understand how products are sold to retailers. As soon as the pallet transfers to Gamestop's warehouse, Gamestop owns those games. If they choose too they could hand out the pallet to whomever they want.

I swear the video game media is just as bad as our politicians. Suck ass to all the corporations in hopes that they might get a job with those same corporations. It's sad when corruption extends its slimy tentacles even over facets of life so meaningless like video games.
 

Jared

The British Paladin
Jul 14, 2009
5,630
0
0
Surprising...well, I supppose if people are actually paying for it...
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
Delusibeta said:
viranimus said:
Seriously... EA knows its a fail. I suspect they are "announcing" its a success in order to dupe the more gullible into thinking "this is acceptable... other people are doing it, so you should too" in order to gain a public conception of legitimacy.
I can't help but feel that it's already accepted by the general gaming public, frankly.
Same here. Hell gamers have taken far more up the butt already, this would just be another day.
 

Notthatbright

New member
Apr 13, 2010
169
0
0
I won't pay for DLC, online modes, or any post production fluff. I wont pay full price for the majority of games, either. You think the newest Assassin's Creed is worth $60? Ha. With Game companies chomping at the block for more of our money (for less and less content) and The Ninth Circuit Court trying to take away our right to sell and buy used software (that'd be games), the allure of piracy is getting more tempting and easily justifiable each day.

I'm a good gamer. I don't pirate. I just buy used. Apparently I'm now a bad gamer. Why not go all the way? If it's all the same to the developers.
 

ChocoFace

New member
Nov 19, 2008
1,409
0
0
tehroc said:
Logan Westbrook said:
Brown's explanation will likely raise a few eyebrows, as buying a game pre-owned doesn't increase the pool of possible online players, it just swaps one out for another. Moreover, for every pre-owned game that exists, someone has paid the full retail price, which would presumably cover the bandwidth costs.
Look it's another video game writer (not you Mr Westbrook your just reposting someone elses article) who doesn't understand how products are sold to retailers. As soon as the pallet transfers to Gamestop's warehouse, Gamestop owns those games. If they choose too they could hand out the pallet to whomever they want.

I swear the video game media is just as bad as our politicians. Suck ass to all the corporations in hopes that they might get a job with those same corporations. It's sad when corruption extends its slimy tentacles even over facets of life so meaningless like video games.
we're talking about a multibillion dollar revenue here. Money is not meaningless to these people. Get your facts straight.
Also yes, this kinda sucks.
 

Keava

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,010
0
0
viranimus said:
Why? Because the issue itself, and the motivation for me to say what I did, is representative of a much greater problem that the consumer/industry are currently engaged in, and it boils down to post product sales.

It goes back to the old adage of bill collectors vs deadbeats "you cant get blood from a turnip" For every drop of blood you willingly relinquish, they will see it yielded blood and begin poking holes elsewhere.

Publishers think they are entitled to every drop of money they can milk out of you. When people willingly approve of something like this with their wallets it tells the publishers that you think it is acceptable to pay for this, and they will in turn begin to think this is an expected source of income and move on to another way to milk the customer out of money.

Look at online revenues. MMOs proved to publishers that Online can = money. So, they started trying to milk money out of people with DLC for stand alone games, which took a while to take off, but eventually proved profitable. Now that they are picking up occasional DLC hits, you see publishers now pushing to sell services like private server rentals, and paying extra for leaderboards, and ranking systems... for shooters.

Thats why even if your not effected by this issue because you buy new, you SHOULD be bothered, because whos to say if this takes off in a year or so, that EA gets a taste of this online access money and feels its justified to start charging all players a 10$ online access fee? If people keep giving up blood, Publishers will keep drilling deeper for it until the well runs dry, and the only way to stop it, is to stop giving up the blood.

EDIT: OT, not trying to sound accusatory. Simply trying to illustrate why everyone should be concerned with this. Not just people who buy used exclusively.
Fan of conspiracy theories? I ask seriously, because you seem to mistake two different things. Over last years the used game market grew to the point where it's not just person A selling a game they got bored with to person B at a lower price. Big retailers came to join the fun and leech the money on products they already sold once without having to pay a single cent to the producers of that product.

And yet there is a whole lot of you that think's creating games is some sort of charity business and companies, especially publishers, should not make money. Sorry to burst your bubble but if EA doesn't make enough money they won't invest it into new titles, which means either there will be less games produced or the quality will drop down. You want that? Keep buying used games and boycott the DLCs/online passes, or just pirate everything. Both cases those evil, sinister companies won't see your money. After all thou art a true rebel against the corporation dominance over the lives of simple mortals.
Game development costs rise up every year and i haven't noticed any major rise in prices lately. Over those 20 years i play i even noticed a drop. Back in 90ties PC game here was usually 150-170PLN (that's about how much i paid for Baldur's Gate i think) which is about 50-60 $, now they are closer to 120-130PLN so ~40$.

MMOs also proved that if your multiplayer sucks you will go down fast. Most companies that jumped on the MMO bandwagon with unfinished products struggle to keep them running. If EA or any other publisher can prove that their multiplayer will be worth the fee i see no problem. Sign me up. If it will be crap, i'll live without the online world. The market is varied enough to let me choose what i want to pay for and last thing those big 'money milking' companies want is to loose customers fast.
 

tehroc

New member
Jul 6, 2009
1,293
0
0
ChocoFace said:
tehroc said:
Logan Westbrook said:
Brown's explanation will likely raise a few eyebrows, as buying a game pre-owned doesn't increase the pool of possible online players, it just swaps one out for another. Moreover, for every pre-owned game that exists, someone has paid the full retail price, which would presumably cover the bandwidth costs.
Look it's another video game writer (not you Mr Westbrook your just reposting someone elses article) who doesn't understand how products are sold to retailers. As soon as the pallet transfers to Gamestop's warehouse, Gamestop owns those games. If they choose too they could hand out the pallet to whomever they want.

I swear the video game media is just as bad as our politicians. Suck ass to all the corporations in hopes that they might get a job with those same corporations. It's sad when corruption extends its slimy tentacles even over facets of life so meaningless like video games.
we're talking about a multibillion dollar revenue here. Money is not meaningless to these people. Get your facts straight.
Also yes, this kinda sucks.
What are you responding to? The first paragraph where I talk about media being purposely ignorant to how products are sold or the second paragraph where I compare video game media to political media.
 

Gather

New member
Apr 9, 2009
492
0
0
...Wasn't this already done on Mass Effect 2?

Was there rage and furor over it? What did I miss...
 

JeanLuc761

New member
Sep 22, 2009
1,479
0
0
Gather said:
...Wasn't this already done on Mass Effect 2?

Was there rage and furor over it? What did I miss...
You're thinking of the Cerberus Network, and I suppose the idea behind it is fairly similar. It functions, more or less, as an online pass and gives players access to a fair deal of free, post-release DLC. Granted, I haven't seen any free DLC lately (not that I'm complaining; Kasumi, Overlord and LotSB were worth every penny), but the idea is roughly the same.

If I remember right, there was a backlash then as well, but people got over it really fast.
 

Gildan Bladeborn

New member
Aug 11, 2009
3,044
0
0
Logan Westbrook said:
Brown thought that retail customers understood that bandwidth wasn't free, so didn't that EA move to "diffuse or cover" the cost of online play was unreasonable.
There are a whole lot of things wrong with that sentence, most notably the missing words "they" and "think" - adding them makes a sentence that is slightly less nonsense but still rife with errors of phrasing; as it is now I can't tell if this should read:
  • "Brown thought that retail customers understood that bandwidth wasn't free, so they didn't think that EA's move to "diffuse or cover" the cost of online play was unreasonable."

Or if all the tenses are wrong and the sentence was meant to read:
  • "Brown thinks that retail customers understand that bandwidth isn't free, so they don't think that EA's moves to "diffuse or cover" the cost of online play are unreasonable."

The second version reads better in my estimation, but either way you should really clean that sentence up.