The EA Games Service
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'd actually be interested in a major game publisher deciding to market their games as a cable-like service: EA would have a very good chance of getting me to pay $10-15 a month to be able to play any of their games at any time (old and new releases alike). You might even convince me to pay $2-5 a month to subscribe to a single game. (Massive content like those found in an MMORPG is a different story.)
Re: Game consoles as Valve-like stores. In the last 5-10 years I've largely switched from PC to console gaming because I can actually still own the damn games on my consoles. The day when that stops being true is the day when I stop playing console games. (I don't mind having an online store as an option; although even those I frequent rarely. Never forget where your data is. [http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2010-05b.html#20100525])
http://www.thealexandrian.net
Re: Game consoles as Valve-like stores. In the last 5-10 years I've largely switched from PC to console gaming because I can actually still own the damn games on my consoles. The day when that stops being true is the day when I stop playing console games. (I don't mind having an online store as an option; although even those I frequent rarely. Never forget where your data is. [http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2010-05b.html#20100525])
http://www.thealexandrian.net
I've always hated the whole 'you don't own your game' attitude publishers seem to have. £40 is a lot of money to be 'allowed' to play a game at the courtesy of some company or another, who reserves the right to just take it all away without notice. Hell, any money is too much really, given the actual lack of ownership PC gamers apparently have over their products.
That said, it's become the status quo. Console gamers don't care cos they've never had to deal with DRM and closing servers (well, Halo 2, sure...), but the moment a company tries to take serious advantage of us I would hope that we would all band together and, I dunno, sign an internet petition... or something...
That said, it's become the status quo. Console gamers don't care cos they've never had to deal with DRM and closing servers (well, Halo 2, sure...), but the moment a company tries to take serious advantage of us I would hope that we would all band together and, I dunno, sign an internet petition... or something...
What is that even in reference to? Namco-BANDAI releases a ton of extra content for free.Jarrid said:
Capcom is the shadiest company when it comes to day one DLC. Versus mode in an action-horror game?
Though they redeemed themselves a bit in my eyes with the excellent and cheaply priced expansions for RE 5 a while back. As long as they chill with that day one shit in the future, I'll forgive them.
I believe the answer is "it's neither a product or a service, it's a scam". It's basically EA trying to gouge gamers to spend more money on an already expensive product. For all comments about the costs of running servers and the like, game companies have been providing these things as part of the product for a very long time, and the inclusion of things like those servers is part of how they were justifying the high price tag to begin with. When your looking at a multi-billion dollar industry it's hard to really have sympathy for stuff like this.
I'm not really sure that gamers are quick to embrace/support this either. I think the issue is mostly that we're not given much of a choice, and so far the gaming populance is a big enough group of addicts where we have not actually refused to patronize the gaming industry as a result. That may or may not be coming for more people due to the fact that I have probably seen more anti-industry sentiment recently than ever before.
I will also say that while piracy is wrong, to fight it takes consumer support. You'll notice that in pretty much every discussion on piracy you wind up with tons of people that defend it. That defense comes specifically because of practices like the ones being discussed here, "is it a product or a service?" and "you need an internet connection" and "$10 for multiplayer access that used to be part of the product".
This is why I say with some frequency that the whole "piracy" issue is basically two criminal gangs going at it. Neither side can claim the moral high ground. The game industry is both greedy and engages in corrupt cartel-type behavior like price fixing. The same kinds of stuff that has the federal goverment constantly at the throat of the gas stations/oil companies. Then you've got the pirates who are outright thieves, however in their case it's careful not to make a "Robin Hood" type analogy because for all claims about the safety of piracy I think these "botnets" and stuff come from these guys using "warez" to infect people's systems, which in many cases is probably their motivation to begin with. Not in every case of course.
I think Steam gets the support it does largely when there is no other option, or they are running a major sale on a product. I, and others, feel that paying full retail price for a game you have no direct control over is ridiculous. I mean consider that some people like me still play games like "Arcanum", or the original Fallout games. Buy your game from Steam and you want to play it in 5 to 10 years you might be totally out of luck, for all we know they could go out of business... hey, people thought companies like "Origin Systems" (once a titan, Richard Garriot could afford private space flights for a reason) were unstoppable titans, but then they got bought out and disappeared.
What's more, since The Internet costs money (and is becoming increasingly expensive as companies find ways to charge more and more money, and the basic service requirements to function online increase) I'm wary about the entire idea of internet connection being required to activate a game, never mind play it, or obtain all of the initial content your entitled to when you lay down your cash.
Truthfully I think what we need is consumer advocacy, though getting enough gamers to organize for something like that would be very difficult. Then we need to see that advocacy challenge the industry on even terms and fight to get things defined fairly along the service/product lines, ensure consumer protection of what they are paying for, and similar things.
I'm not really sure that gamers are quick to embrace/support this either. I think the issue is mostly that we're not given much of a choice, and so far the gaming populance is a big enough group of addicts where we have not actually refused to patronize the gaming industry as a result. That may or may not be coming for more people due to the fact that I have probably seen more anti-industry sentiment recently than ever before.
I will also say that while piracy is wrong, to fight it takes consumer support. You'll notice that in pretty much every discussion on piracy you wind up with tons of people that defend it. That defense comes specifically because of practices like the ones being discussed here, "is it a product or a service?" and "you need an internet connection" and "$10 for multiplayer access that used to be part of the product".
This is why I say with some frequency that the whole "piracy" issue is basically two criminal gangs going at it. Neither side can claim the moral high ground. The game industry is both greedy and engages in corrupt cartel-type behavior like price fixing. The same kinds of stuff that has the federal goverment constantly at the throat of the gas stations/oil companies. Then you've got the pirates who are outright thieves, however in their case it's careful not to make a "Robin Hood" type analogy because for all claims about the safety of piracy I think these "botnets" and stuff come from these guys using "warez" to infect people's systems, which in many cases is probably their motivation to begin with. Not in every case of course.
I think Steam gets the support it does largely when there is no other option, or they are running a major sale on a product. I, and others, feel that paying full retail price for a game you have no direct control over is ridiculous. I mean consider that some people like me still play games like "Arcanum", or the original Fallout games. Buy your game from Steam and you want to play it in 5 to 10 years you might be totally out of luck, for all we know they could go out of business... hey, people thought companies like "Origin Systems" (once a titan, Richard Garriot could afford private space flights for a reason) were unstoppable titans, but then they got bought out and disappeared.
What's more, since The Internet costs money (and is becoming increasingly expensive as companies find ways to charge more and more money, and the basic service requirements to function online increase) I'm wary about the entire idea of internet connection being required to activate a game, never mind play it, or obtain all of the initial content your entitled to when you lay down your cash.
Truthfully I think what we need is consumer advocacy, though getting enough gamers to organize for something like that would be very difficult. Then we need to see that advocacy challenge the industry on even terms and fight to get things defined fairly along the service/product lines, ensure consumer protection of what they are paying for, and similar things.
Just going to say this. Never will I do business with a company who charges for online play.
Plus, with this DLC business that's going on now, I feel that now more than ever we need some kind of Gamers' Union that can stand up for our rights in a more definite manner.
Plus, with this DLC business that's going on now, I feel that now more than ever we need some kind of Gamers' Union that can stand up for our rights in a more definite manner.
Well, somebody probably needs to become a legitimate competitor to Valve because at the moment its only out of the goodness of their hearts that they don't crack the whip on us and introduces some more stringent policy but I don't know if anyone can. Nothing even comes close to how much of the market Steam has for whatever reason. Somebody needs to learn why and compete. Consoles could offer a blank slate to introduce steam like platforms. Console players are partially disjoint from PC players and could be used as an untapped resource, willing to try a new platform in the absence of Steam and assuming that Microsoft and Sony both introduce steam like products simultaneously they could create a new market that is equally divided and just as big as Steam. Maybe they can even move to PC from their and provide proper competition for Steam as it curb-stomps its current lowly rivals.
I still want to be able to hold a game in my hand and think that in 20 years I could still play it (Probably not since the TV hook-ups and wall socket might be different, but still) but I have the feeling that selling a service rather then a product is more lucrative and we may be at a crossroad.
I still want to be able to hold a game in my hand and think that in 20 years I could still play it (Probably not since the TV hook-ups and wall socket might be different, but still) but I have the feeling that selling a service rather then a product is more lucrative and we may be at a crossroad.
"If they don't attempt this in the next console generation, they are idiots."
If they DO attempt it they are idiots. They would be cutting out much too large a portion of their consumer base by going digital only, and thankfully, they already know that and thus won't be trying any stupid digital only schemes for their consoles anytime soon.
If they DO attempt it they are idiots. They would be cutting out much too large a portion of their consumer base by going digital only, and thankfully, they already know that and thus won't be trying any stupid digital only schemes for their consoles anytime soon.
Uh dude MS, Sony and Nintendo already have a marketplace to buy games online. They just don't have multi-gb current gen AAA games for sale there yet, probably because of low adoption rate of of high speed, unlimited internet connections.
As for the whole games as a service thing of course the publishers want to go that way. The ideal situation for content owners is that each user pays for each instance of access, like your arcade example. This is opposed to the ideal situation for consumers where you pay once and get unlimited access.
Maybe I'm looking at the past with rose colored glasses but I feel like games were better before they were an "industry". A game developers was just a few guys with a good idea, occasionally they would even have a budget if they already had a success under their belt. And a lot fewer people who used "monetize" without irony in their day to day conversation.
I guess I'm an old fart but I don't see the appeal of online console play. For sports games it is way more fun to have friends over and drink beer, for shooters split screen works great (and for more serious geek intensity local network + split screen). What is a truly annoying modern (>10 year old) trend is for game developers to skip out on local network, direct ip, or player server options and just allow players to connect to their servers. SC 2 is a no-go for me just because of this. And Diablo 3 will also be no sale if they require any kind of connection for pure single player gaming.
As for the whole games as a service thing of course the publishers want to go that way. The ideal situation for content owners is that each user pays for each instance of access, like your arcade example. This is opposed to the ideal situation for consumers where you pay once and get unlimited access.
Maybe I'm looking at the past with rose colored glasses but I feel like games were better before they were an "industry". A game developers was just a few guys with a good idea, occasionally they would even have a budget if they already had a success under their belt. And a lot fewer people who used "monetize" without irony in their day to day conversation.
I guess I'm an old fart but I don't see the appeal of online console play. For sports games it is way more fun to have friends over and drink beer, for shooters split screen works great (and for more serious geek intensity local network + split screen). What is a truly annoying modern (>10 year old) trend is for game developers to skip out on local network, direct ip, or player server options and just allow players to connect to their servers. SC 2 is a no-go for me just because of this. And Diablo 3 will also be no sale if they require any kind of connection for pure single player gaming.
Well is it any wonder? These publishers think they have the right to invade other people's property through various agents and remove stuff they paid for. They want to have it both ways and yet people slag customers for feeling "entitled" while they can't even explain why a publisher should be able to pull this kind of stuff with their customers who have done nothing to injure them. The piracy bugbear has now morphed into the the used game bugbear, and consumers cheer because they (Rightly.) hate Gamestop. However these geniuses don't get that these companies are still driving business towards the likes of Gamestop by giving them all of these pre-order deals. So the only one actually hurt by this is them.
Um... that's your fault for buying from a shop that won't give you a receipt or do returns. Mind you, I'm not even putting blame for this on the shop. They have their policy and it's their right to have it. It's the customer's fault if they buy something from the shop knowing the policy and then get screwed when the product was faulty. Don't blame EA because you buy from a shady dealer.RobCoxxy said:
That doesn't make sense. EA said that they wouldn't replace the disc because he could not prove that he had the game for more than three months. The problem with that is that the game was only out for two weeks in the U.K. and three in the U.S. Unless he stole the game somehow (Which they have no reason to suspect him of doing.) three months had not passed since release.WhiteTigerShiro said:
No receipt, no proof. I don't care if the game came out yesterday. Do you really think the customer service reps care about which game you're talking about or when it was released? I highly doubt that. And frankly, you brought-up the very reason that the release date is irrelevant. How do they know you didn't just pinch that from the local WalMart and now you want a replacement for a game you didn't even buy.shadow skill said:
So again, this is his fault. Not EA's fault. Not the store's fault. Just his, he doesn't have to share any of it.
How do they know he doesn't have a time machine? You see the problem here? They have no reason to suspect him of stealing the item or receiving one early by mistake. However we do know that the game has not been out long enough for the three month limitation to be in effect under normal circumstances. So given the fact that the suspicion that he is a thief is unreasonable and the game has not been out three months, EA's refusal to replace the disc makes no sense. It would be like asking him if he was self-aware and then denying him service because he has no means to actually prove that he is self-aware. (You can only be aware of yourself, you can neither prove or disprove that someone who responds to stimuli in a "normal" fashion is actually self-aware.) We don't bother with such things because there is no reason for us to suspect others of being mere simulations of self-aware beings under everyday conditions.WhiteTigerShiro said: