The Monster That Is EA

[MrTub]

We'll start with one common injustice that many EA games come with: online passes.

The very basis of private ownership is that if you pay for something, it is yours, and you are free to do with it as you wish.

Too keep it short and simple since it's quite late here...

Yes you can do with them whatever you please. You can use the code and thus gain access to a additional online service, or you may not use the code and thus re sell it. The moment you decide to use the code you use it up.

You agreed to the terms, so quit complaining. You had a choice and you made it, welcome to world of transactions.

Another thing is, it's about time that people would realize that when they buy a game they do not buy ownership of the game. The things you own include the box and it's contents - plastic disc and some pamphlets as well as personal license to use this game.
You do know what EULA means, yes?
It's a license. A form of contract. That you agreed to the moment you pressed I AGREE. You didn't read it? Your own fault.

Grant. Through this purchase, you are acquiring and EA grants you a
personal, non-exclusive license to install and use the Software for your
personal, non-commercial use solely as set forth in this License and the
accompanying documentation. Your acquired rights are subject to your
compliance with this Agreement. Any commercial use is prohibited. You
are expressly prohibited from sub-licensing, renting, leasing or otherwise
distributing the Software or rights to use the Software, except by transfer
as expressly set forth in paragraph 2 below.

What are you people not understanding about my argument? I agreed to it, and I knew what I was doing. Does that mean I'm happy? No! The point is, EA SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS. It is simply and purely malevolent. They should care enough not to opress their customers by doing this. I'm not saying it's unlawful, I'm saying it's immoral, and I won't stand for it.

I would say its quite immoral to buy used games considering the developer gets zero money from it but why doesnt you and your brother share a hdd instead of using 2x?

 

[kemosabi4]

The publisher/developer gets no money whatsoever from used game sales, they have to make up for it somehow and EA has brought the best solution to the table. I am a little sympathetic to the people who borrow a game from a friend/relative and can't enjoy it because of this. However I'm in no way sympathetic to someone who buys used games, if I can dish out twice as much money for a game in my country ,which has no used game retailers and in which people are paid 8 times lower than in the US, you have no reason to complain.

It's called "retail". When you pay for something, you own it. It is, therefore, your sole decision to sell or limit the sale of it. What EA's doing, in reality, doesn't even make them money, (unless the customer is desperate or thick-headed enough to pay for the pass) all they're doing is restricting the sale of the product when it's out of their ownership. (literally, not legally, just to preempt all the semanticists out there)

 

[kemosabi4]

We'll start with one common injustice that many EA games come with: online passes.

The very basis of private ownership is that if you pay for something, it is yours, and you are free to do with it as you wish.

Too keep it short and simple since it's quite late here...

Yes you can do with them whatever you please. You can use the code and thus gain access to a additional online service, or you may not use the code and thus re sell it. The moment you decide to use the code you use it up.

You agreed to the terms, so quit complaining. You had a choice and you made it, welcome to world of transactions.

Another thing is, it's about time that people would realize that when they buy a game they do not buy ownership of the game. The things you own include the box and it's contents - plastic disc and some pamphlets as well as personal license to use this game.
You do know what EULA means, yes?
It's a license. A form of contract. That you agreed to the moment you pressed I AGREE. You didn't read it? Your own fault.

Grant. Through this purchase, you are acquiring and EA grants you a
personal, non-exclusive license to install and use the Software for your
personal, non-commercial use solely as set forth in this License and the
accompanying documentation. Your acquired rights are subject to your
compliance with this Agreement. Any commercial use is prohibited. You
are expressly prohibited from sub-licensing, renting, leasing or otherwise
distributing the Software or rights to use the Software, except by transfer
as expressly set forth in paragraph 2 below.

What are you people not understanding about my argument? I agreed to it, and I knew what I was doing. Does that mean I'm happy? No! The point is, EA SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS. It is simply and purely malevolent. They should care enough not to opress their customers by doing this. I'm not saying it's unlawful, I'm saying it's immoral, and I won't stand for it.

I would say its quite immoral to buy used games considering the developer gets zero money from it but why doesnt you and your brother share a hdd instead of using 2x?

I suggest you look up the word "retail". Simply, it means selling something after first purchasing it. The developer doesn't deserve to make money off of it, because the customer (actually, the game retailer) already paid full price for the product. No one should CONTINUE making money off of a product after they have already been paid in full for it. And before you pull out the legality card again, I just want to say that I am fully aware that people can do this all the time, I'm just saying I don't support it.

The second question is completely irrelevant. We have two separate Live accounts, and they work fine on a single HDD, that doesn't change the fact that, even though we paid for the game jointly, we have to buy a SECOND ONLINE PASS.

 

[Antari]

Its been so long since I've bought an EA game I forgot what I origionally got angry at them for. So thank you for some extra fuel to keep me away!

 

[bombadilillo]

Whatever, they make the online pass 10$ gamestop will sell it 15$ cheaper and people will still buy it there. I can see them buying a code and bundling it with it.

 

[MrTub]

We'll start with one common injustice that many EA games come with: online passes.

The very basis of private ownership is that if you pay for something, it is yours, and you are free to do with it as you wish.

Too keep it short and simple since it's quite late here...

Yes you can do with them whatever you please. You can use the code and thus gain access to a additional online service, or you may not use the code and thus re sell it. The moment you decide to use the code you use it up.

You agreed to the terms, so quit complaining. You had a choice and you made it, welcome to world of transactions.

Another thing is, it's about time that people would realize that when they buy a game they do not buy ownership of the game. The things you own include the box and it's contents - plastic disc and some pamphlets as well as personal license to use this game.
You do know what EULA means, yes?
It's a license. A form of contract. That you agreed to the moment you pressed I AGREE. You didn't read it? Your own fault.

Grant. Through this purchase, you are acquiring and EA grants you a
personal, non-exclusive license to install and use the Software for your
personal, non-commercial use solely as set forth in this License and the
accompanying documentation. Your acquired rights are subject to your
compliance with this Agreement. Any commercial use is prohibited. You
are expressly prohibited from sub-licensing, renting, leasing or otherwise
distributing the Software or rights to use the Software, except by transfer
as expressly set forth in paragraph 2 below.

What are you people not understanding about my argument? I agreed to it, and I knew what I was doing. Does that mean I'm happy? No! The point is, EA SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS. It is simply and purely malevolent. They should care enough not to opress their customers by doing this. I'm not saying it's unlawful, I'm saying it's immoral, and I won't stand for it.

I would say its quite immoral to buy used games considering the developer gets zero money from it but why doesnt you and your brother share a hdd instead of using 2x?

I suggest you look up the word "retail". Simply, it means selling something after first purchasing it. The developer doesn't deserve to make money off of it, because the customer (actually, the game retailer) already paid full price for the product. No one should CONTINUE making money off of a product after they have already been paid in full for it. And before you pull out the legality card again, I just want to say that I am fully aware that people can do this all the time, I'm just saying I don't support it.

The second question is completely irrelevant. We have two separate Live accounts, and they work fine on a single HDD, that doesn't change the fact that, even though we paid for the game jointly, we have to buy a SECOND ONLINE PASS.

So? Why does it moral to buy second hand copies just because its called retail? I know countries which there are legal to download games but does that make it moral?.

Why should the developer allow people to buy second hand copies and then still except it to work as new? while they get no money from it so if you believe one download is one lost sale then I would argue that one second hand sold is a lost sale for the developer.


Since I do not use my xbox 360 I do not understand what you mean with "We have two separate Live accounts, and they work fine on a single HDD"

Im guessing your dlc is saved on your live account? And if its so why do you not just share the same account?

 

[Gametek]

But if it isn't a second hand copy then they won't charge you, the charge will only apply if you're buying games second hand.

I think that the whole point is if you trust Ea or not. You believe that they won't try to charge extra money on any one? I don't think so. Not from a company that paid folk to protest against one of his game.
And how they will understand that the game is second hand? DRM check? Not day one copy? It's gonna end bad, believe me.

 

[Alade]

The publisher/developer gets no money whatsoever from used game sales, they have to make up for it somehow and EA has brought the best solution to the table. I am a little sympathetic to the people who borrow a game from a friend/relative and can't enjoy it because of this. However I'm in no way sympathetic to someone who buys used games, if I can dish out twice as much money for a game in my country ,which has no used game retailers and in which people are paid 8 times lower than in the US, you have no reason to complain.

It's called "retail". When you pay for something, you own it. It is, therefore, your sole decision to sell or limit the sale of it. What EA's doing, in reality, doesn't even make them money, (unless the customer is desperate or thick-headed enough to pay for the pass) all they're doing is restricting the sale of the product when it's out of their ownership. (literally, not legally, just to preempt all the semanticists out there)

The system encourages customers to buy actual games, and not the used copies and manages to take 10 bucks from the people who didn't realize that buying the game used wouldn't give them online, business at it's finest. Used game sales are becoming a very serious problem to the whole industry, EA has found a way to have some profit of it, soon enough every single game publisher will do so too, EA offers a good solution, the other publishers most likely will not.

 

[kemosabi4]

So? Why does it moral to buy second hand copies just because its called retail? I know countries which there are legal to download games but does that make it moral?.

Why should the developer allow people to buy second hand copies and then still except it to work as new? while they get no money from it so if you believe one download is one lost sale then I would argue that one second hand sold is a lost sale for the developer.


Since I do not use my xbox 360 I do not understand what you mean with "We have two separate Live accounts, and they work fine on a single HDD"

Im guessing your dlc is saved on your live account? And if its so why do you not just share the same account?

It's moral because the buyer is now the rightful owner, and should be able to pass the full experience down to the next buyer. The whole argument that "you can't expect it to be as good when you buy used" is completely irrelevant to the online pass argument. It won't be as good because it's worn out, it's lost value. Not because a HUGE chunk of the experience has disappeared for no more reason then the original seller didn't want others making money.

I still have no idea where your hard drive comments are going, let's just forget that.

 

[Tiger Sora]

I'm not paying 70 dollars every year for a new roster. It's the reason I've never liked sports games.

 

[MrTub]

So? Why does it moral to buy second hand copies just because its called retail? I know countries which there are legal to download games but does that make it moral?.

Why should the developer allow people to buy second hand copies and then still except it to work as new? while they get no money from it so if you believe one download is one lost sale then I would argue that one second hand sold is a lost sale for the developer.


Since I do not use my xbox 360 I do not understand what you mean with "We have two separate Live accounts, and they work fine on a single HDD"

Im guessing your dlc is saved on your live account? And if its so why do you not just share the same account?

It's moral because the buyer is now the rightful owner, and should be able to pass the full experience down to the next buyer. The whole argument that "you can't expect it to be as good when you buy used" is completely irrelevant to the online pass argument. It won't be as good because it's worn out, it's lost value. Not because a HUGE chunk of the experience has disappeared for no more reason then the original seller didn't want others making money.

I still have no idea where your hard drive comments are going, let's just forget that.

My comments about the HDD is that you seems to argue that its immoral of EA to try to make a small profit of Second hand buying and you're problem with that seems to be mostly cause you and your brother uses 2x hdds or two different live account and therefor you need to buy the dlc for one account considering you only get one code for one account?

 

[kemosabi4]

The publisher/developer gets no money whatsoever from used game sales, they have to make up for it somehow and EA has brought the best solution to the table. I am a little sympathetic to the people who borrow a game from a friend/relative and can't enjoy it because of this. However I'm in no way sympathetic to someone who buys used games, if I can dish out twice as much money for a game in my country ,which has no used game retailers and in which people are paid 8 times lower than in the US, you have no reason to complain.

It's called "retail". When you pay for something, you own it. It is, therefore, your sole decision to sell or limit the sale of it. What EA's doing, in reality, doesn't even make them money, (unless the customer is desperate or thick-headed enough to pay for the pass) all they're doing is restricting the sale of the product when it's out of their ownership. (literally, not legally, just to preempt all the semanticists out there)

The system encourages customers to buy actual games, and not the used copies and manages to take 10 bucks from the people who didn't realize that buying the game used wouldn't give them online, business at it's finest. Used game sales are becoming a very serious problem to the whole industry, EA has found a way to have some profit of it, soon enough every single game publisher will do so too, EA offers a good solution, the other publishers most likely will not.

Most people who buy used either don't have the means or the will to buy the original product. I don't see how the second-hand game market is harming the game industry, because most people who purchase used wouldn't have bought a new game anyway.

 

[kemosabi4]

So? Why does it moral to buy second hand copies just because its called retail? I know countries which there are legal to download games but does that make it moral?.

Why should the developer allow people to buy second hand copies and then still except it to work as new? while they get no money from it so if you believe one download is one lost sale then I would argue that one second hand sold is a lost sale for the developer.


Since I do not use my xbox 360 I do not understand what you mean with "We have two separate Live accounts, and they work fine on a single HDD"

Im guessing your dlc is saved on your live account? And if its so why do you not just share the same account?

It's moral because the buyer is now the rightful owner, and should be able to pass the full experience down to the next buyer. The whole argument that "you can't expect it to be as good when you buy used" is completely irrelevant to the online pass argument. It won't be as good because it's worn out, it's lost value. Not because a HUGE chunk of the experience has disappeared for no more reason then the original seller didn't want others making money.

I still have no idea where your hard drive comments are going, let's just forget that.

My comments about the HDD is that you seems to argue that its immoral of EA to try to make a small profit of Second hand buying and you're problem with that seems to be mostly cause you and your brother uses 2x hdds or two different live account and therefor you need to buy the dlc for one account considering you only get one code for one account?

No, when you download the DLC, it's saved on your hard drive and all accounts have access to it, whereas online passes have to be purchased for every account. This is the bane of living with multiple Live customers, because even though DLC affects you all, EA is still to stingy to do the same.

 

[kemosabi4]

I'm not paying 70 dollars every year for a new roster. It's the reason I've never liked sports games.

I've noticed an unsettling amount of MLP avatars in this thread. When did the Bronies invade the Escapist?

 

[MrTub]

So? Why does it moral to buy second hand copies just because its called retail? I know countries which there are legal to download games but does that make it moral?.

Why should the developer allow people to buy second hand copies and then still except it to work as new? while they get no money from it so if you believe one download is one lost sale then I would argue that one second hand sold is a lost sale for the developer.


Since I do not use my xbox 360 I do not understand what you mean with "We have two separate Live accounts, and they work fine on a single HDD"

Im guessing your dlc is saved on your live account? And if its so why do you not just share the same account?

It's moral because the buyer is now the rightful owner, and should be able to pass the full experience down to the next buyer. The whole argument that "you can't expect it to be as good when you buy used" is completely irrelevant to the online pass argument. It won't be as good because it's worn out, it's lost value. Not because a HUGE chunk of the experience has disappeared for no more reason then the original seller didn't want others making money.

I still have no idea where your hard drive comments are going, let's just forget that.

My comments about the HDD is that you seems to argue that its immoral of EA to try to make a small profit of Second hand buying and you're problem with that seems to be mostly cause you and your brother uses 2x hdds or two different live account and therefor you need to buy the dlc for one account considering you only get one code for one account?

No, when you download the DLC, it's saved on your hard drive and all accounts have access to it, whereas online passes have to be purchased for every account. This is the bane of living with multiple Live customers, because even though DLC affects you all, EA is still to stingy to do the same.

And therefor I ask again why do you not simply share a hdd with your brother and everything should be fine?

 

[Tiger Sora]

Months ago man, though I just got this avi last night... and working today.

 

[Alade]

The publisher/developer gets no money whatsoever from used game sales, they have to make up for it somehow and EA has brought the best solution to the table. I am a little sympathetic to the people who borrow a game from a friend/relative and can't enjoy it because of this. However I'm in no way sympathetic to someone who buys used games, if I can dish out twice as much money for a game in my country ,which has no used game retailers and in which people are paid 8 times lower than in the US, you have no reason to complain.

It's called "retail". When you pay for something, you own it. It is, therefore, your sole decision to sell or limit the sale of it. What EA's doing, in reality, doesn't even make them money, (unless the customer is desperate or thick-headed enough to pay for the pass) all they're doing is restricting the sale of the product when it's out of their ownership. (literally, not legally, just to preempt all the semanticists out there)

The system encourages customers to buy actual games, and not the used copies and manages to take 10 bucks from the people who didn't realize that buying the game used wouldn't give them online, business at it's finest. Used game sales are becoming a very serious problem to the whole industry, EA has found a way to have some profit of it, soon enough every single game publisher will do so too, EA offers a good solution, the other publishers most likely will not.

Most people who buy used either don't have the means or the will to buy the original product. I don't see how the second-hand game market is harming the game industry, because most people who purchase used wouldn't have bought a new game anyway.

That's just lying, most people buy used games because they're cheaper than actual games. Also, the same excuse you just used justifies piracy.

 

[kemosabi4]

So? Why does it moral to buy second hand copies just because its called retail? I know countries which there are legal to download games but does that make it moral?.

Why should the developer allow people to buy second hand copies and then still except it to work as new? while they get no money from it so if you believe one download is one lost sale then I would argue that one second hand sold is a lost sale for the developer.


Since I do not use my xbox 360 I do not understand what you mean with "We have two separate Live accounts, and they work fine on a single HDD"

Im guessing your dlc is saved on your live account? And if its so why do you not just share the same account?

It's moral because the buyer is now the rightful owner, and should be able to pass the full experience down to the next buyer. The whole argument that "you can't expect it to be as good when you buy used" is completely irrelevant to the online pass argument. It won't be as good because it's worn out, it's lost value. Not because a HUGE chunk of the experience has disappeared for no more reason then the original seller didn't want others making money.

I still have no idea where your hard drive comments are going, let's just forget that.

My comments about the HDD is that you seems to argue that its immoral of EA to try to make a small profit of Second hand buying and you're problem with that seems to be mostly cause you and your brother uses 2x hdds or two different live account and therefor you need to buy the dlc for one account considering you only get one code for one account?

No, when you download the DLC, it's saved on your hard drive and all accounts have access to it, whereas online passes have to be purchased for every account. This is the bane of living with multiple Live customers, because even though DLC affects you all, EA is still to stingy to do the same.

And therefor I ask again why do you not simply share a hdd with your brother and everything should be fine?

We do, that's what I'm saying. DLC isn't the problem, because all the profiles on an HDD get it. But it doesn't work for online passes. They aren't shared between everybody, meaning only one profile gets to play online, while the others have to fork over $10.

 

[kemosabi4]

The publisher/developer gets no money whatsoever from used game sales, they have to make up for it somehow and EA has brought the best solution to the table. I am a little sympathetic to the people who borrow a game from a friend/relative and can't enjoy it because of this. However I'm in no way sympathetic to someone who buys used games, if I can dish out twice as much money for a game in my country ,which has no used game retailers and in which people are paid 8 times lower than in the US, you have no reason to complain.

It's called "retail". When you pay for something, you own it. It is, therefore, your sole decision to sell or limit the sale of it. What EA's doing, in reality, doesn't even make them money, (unless the customer is desperate or thick-headed enough to pay for the pass) all they're doing is restricting the sale of the product when it's out of their ownership. (literally, not legally, just to preempt all the semanticists out there)

The system encourages customers to buy actual games, and not the used copies and manages to take 10 bucks from the people who didn't realize that buying the game used wouldn't give them online, business at it's finest. Used game sales are becoming a very serious problem to the whole industry, EA has found a way to have some profit of it, soon enough every single game publisher will do so too, EA offers a good solution, the other publishers most likely will not.

Most people who buy used either don't have the means or the will to buy the original product. I don't see how the second-hand game market is harming the game industry, because most people who purchase used wouldn't have bought a new game anyway.

That's just lying, most people buy used games because they're cheaper than actual games. Also, the same excuse you just used justifies piracy.

Not in my experience. But then again, I live in central Nebraska.

 

[MrTub]

So? Why does it moral to buy second hand copies just because its called retail? I know countries which there are legal to download games but does that make it moral?.

Why should the developer allow people to buy second hand copies and then still except it to work as new? while they get no money from it so if you believe one download is one lost sale then I would argue that one second hand sold is a lost sale for the developer.


Since I do not use my xbox 360 I do not understand what you mean with "We have two separate Live accounts, and they work fine on a single HDD"

Im guessing your dlc is saved on your live account? And if its so why do you not just share the same account?

It's moral because the buyer is now the rightful owner, and should be able to pass the full experience down to the next buyer. The whole argument that "you can't expect it to be as good when you buy used" is completely irrelevant to the online pass argument. It won't be as good because it's worn out, it's lost value. Not because a HUGE chunk of the experience has disappeared for no more reason then the original seller didn't want others making money.

I still have no idea where your hard drive comments are going, let's just forget that.

My comments about the HDD is that you seems to argue that its immoral of EA to try to make a small profit of Second hand buying and you're problem with that seems to be mostly cause you and your brother uses 2x hdds or two different live account and therefor you need to buy the dlc for one account considering you only get one code for one account?

No, when you download the DLC, it's saved on your hard drive and all accounts have access to it, whereas online passes have to be purchased for every account. This is the bane of living with multiple Live customers, because even though DLC affects you all, EA is still to stingy to do the same.

And therefor I ask again why do you not simply share a hdd with your brother and everything should be fine?

We do, that's what I'm saying. DLC isn't the problem, because all the profiles on an HDD get it. But it doesn't work for online passes. They aren't shared between everybody, meaning only one profile gets to play online, while the others have to fork over $10.

Ah...

But then I ask why do you not share the same account or is there something else Im missing again?