The EA Games Service

[Larsirius]

I hope we can all agree on that EA is evil, Activison is evil, and MW2 was broken.

 

[FloodOne]

And the misinformation continues to spread...

 

[DTWolfwood]

online is free for new purchases. (still sounds weird to say that with a straight face...)

But their server cost excuse is bullshit tho.

When you charge $60 for a game aren't you already saying "This is how much it costs me to run my server for this price and this ONE COPY of the game" whether the game is used or not, isnt the service for that game paid for? its not like the person who sold it still has the game! (piracy not withstanding)

 

[MrFarquar]

I get pissed of with everything needing a DLC to make it a finished game. Look at Dragons Age, even while playing offline i was still getting jibs for not having paied for the missions i was coming across. I was offline and it was the first few days of the game being out and i was already being told id have to pay out more money to play the game..? Additions added later a few months on, fair enough. look at Oblivion we got the whole game, then when the DLC came it was a massive addition to the game, and worth the money too.. GTA4 DLC were later released as stand alone games.. but to charge me to add a little mission to my game, and add acheivements to it that deduct from the standing 1000.. DLC comes with its own score.
Anyway, to charge £40 for a game their willing to say is 50% complete, to charge at least 1/4 of that again for the rest of the game we thought we were getting in thefirst place, and then charge to play online again on top of XBL subscriptions. All a bit much and a major rip off in my books.

 

[DaOysterboy]

online is free for new purchases. (still sounds weird to say that with a straight face...)

But their server cost excuse is bullshit tho.

When you charge $60 for a game aren't you already saying "This is how much it costs me to run my server for this price and this ONE COPY of the game" whether the game is used or not, isnt the service for that game paid for? its not like the person who sold it still has the game! (piracy not withstanding)

You sir, are a wise man. I was about to post this very argument. Why does EA get to charge "Per user" rather than "per copy"? If they sell 2 million units new, and everyone who buys new gets free online play, then they have to support 2 million players on their servers. If any/all players sell the game to someone else the number of game copies the servers need to support still CANNOT exceed 2 million. This is raw, undiluted price gouging. And to everyone who says that "buying used hurts the industry because you don't support developers/publishers", please just finish your kool-aid and go die somewhere. No industry has ever collapsed because there was a used market.

 

[DaOysterboy]

Great article Shamus (as usual). We see eye to eye on just about everything here, but I still use Steam if the price is right. Personally I prefer my games as property, but $2.50 was an acceptable price over the Steam holiday sale to make up for missing Monkey Island back in the day. So while I don't necessarily dislike what Steam is (I almost never sell my games, I can download games after hours at work then play in offline mode at home, and Steam doesn't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon), I really dislike the message that EA and Ubisoft seem to be picking up from their success. I don't think I'd ever put up with the terms and conditions (and I might add implications) of Steam for a full-priced day 1 release. I'd need a disk and a bit more assurance that the game will always be playable with all features so long as the disk is in working condition (thus, Assassin's Creed 2 can go die in a fire).

 

[Nurb]

people seem to forget that with games services, the digital games they buy won't be on the servers forever. When the server goes offline, the company goes under, or just the passing of time makes it pointless for them to store old games on servers and deletes them, or of course the dreaded "YOUR ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED", all of which means your library and everything you spent your money on is gone. No games to replay later.

 

[Outright Villainy]

EA annoyed me with ME2. I bought it first hand from a small shop in my uni town who (simply to stay in the black) do not do refunds/returns, so my receipt was pointless.

Disc 2 was pre-scratched. This was a fortnight after release I'd bought it, EA wouldn't replace it because I had no proof I'd had it for less than three months. Two weeks after UK release, Three after US.

Physically impossible to have had it for three months.
Unless I'm a fucking Time Lord.

You know you were entitled to a refund from the shop right? Sale of goods act / statutory rights / contract of sale?

What he said. Just because they say no refunds, you're still entitled by law to get a refund if your product is faulty.

 

[FloodOne]

people seem to forget that with games services, the digital games they buy won't be on the servers forever. When the server goes offline, the company goes under, or just the passing of time makes it pointless for them to store old games on servers and deletes them, or of course the dreaded "YOUR ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED", all of which means your library and everything you spent your money on is gone. No games to replay later.

That's why you back up your games on an external memory source?

 

[surhorse]

While I don't agree with EA, his quote was a bit misrepresented.

Today, what happens with a game is a team is there where you [use data] to improve it, provide great post-release content, new services like we did with FIFA and Madden recently with Ultimate Team. I mean the project is only half done when we ship it. It keeps going.

What he's trying to say is that in the old days, once games were shipped, the game was final. You moved on to the next edition to make things better. Modern games insist that developers make sweeping changes to the game. One could argue that Team Fortress 2 was only 40% done when it came out, seeing as it's more than doubled in content since release.

 

[Aurgelmir]

Services are products too.

Consider this:
There is a term out there called "product development", but no one talks about "service development"

Why? because a lot of industries (not just game industry) do not operate with a distinction between whats a product and whats a service, both take the same kind of "brainpower" to come up with. Most products and services usually have the same factors which governs if they'll be a success or not.

There is nothing wrong with a service that require a product to enjoy. To be able to play Xbox Live you HAVE to have an Xbox 360 that works. Xbox Live is the service, the console is the product, break the product loose the service (even though you had 6 months left of your gold membership).

Enough with the logical part of my rant, over to my opinion.

Sure if its a product or a service really doesn't matter as long as it feels annoyingly controlling of the customer.
A product or service is only going to work in the long run if it something the customer wants. Its that simple.
You can sugarcoat your DRM as much as you want, bit if I do not want it I will not buy it, no matter how many fancy shiny pixels you throw at me.

Whats pissing me of these days is that all these DRM programs seem to slowly make their way to the consoles too... which is quite annoying.

 

[Nurb]

people seem to forget that with games services, the digital games they buy won't be on the servers forever. When the server goes offline, the company goes under, or just the passing of time makes it pointless for them to store old games on servers and deletes them, or of course the dreaded "YOUR ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED", all of which means your library and everything you spent your money on is gone. No games to replay later.

That's why you back up your games on an external memory source?

doesn't do any good if the games require net teather and/or online activation and the servers were taken down years ago or the company doesn't exist anymore.