The Monster That Is EA

[Idsertian]

I agree with OP. EA has a track record for being money grabbing bastards and it's one of the reasons I make a conscious effort to try and avoid buying any EA game new. Unfortunately, EA have this nasty habit of publishing amazing/interesting/cool games and occasionally, they win a round of the consumer war with me. Anyone remember the "limited installs" fiasco? Fuck you EA, we paid for the game, we'll install on however many machines we like, however often we like. We will NOT pay you again for the privilege of doing so. They pull stunts like this and then sit there scratching their arses wondering why so many people buy used or go and download the games through torrents.

Charging people for the right to play the game online? Err, no EA, get stuffed. I can't afford your extravagantly over-priced game (£40+ here in the UK for a brand new game, pretty much regardless of platform), so I've bought it used from a retail store. You have no right to my money, nor any right to restrict my access to something I have legally purchased. That on top of the fact that Microsoft already have money in the way of my XBL subscription, why should I basically pay twice for the ability to play online?

In short, EA suck. *sighs* I can remember a time when they were a decent company.

 

[Auxiliary]

Blame gamestop.

 

[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.

Ah...

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

Because we are two individuals with our own personalities, friends, skills, etc. Therefore, we want our own individual Live accounts, so we can distinguish ourselves from each other.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Aren't there other companies that have used similar programs to try and get money from used games sales? I know EA is a big fat target for the rage of everyone with a keyboard but this trend is a little bigger then one company simply muhahah-ing to themselves.

 

[kemosabi4]

Once posting slows down a bit, (and if I feel like it) I'll post the most abusive, inexcusable, ridiculous, ignorant, and stupidly evil thing EA does.

 

[kemosabi4]

Aren't there other companies that have used similar programs to try and get money from used games sales? I know EA is a big fat target for the rage of everyone with a keyboard but this trend is a little bigger then one company simply muhahah-ing to themselves.

Examples?

 

[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?

Because we are two individuals with our own personalities, friends, skills, etc. Therefore, we want our own individual Live accounts, so we can distinguish ourselves from each other.

Well Im sorry but imo that is quite a bad argument considering if I buy a game on steam I can only play it on my account and if I want to share it with my brother he either needs to loggin into my account or I need to buy a completely new game for that and if those 10$ really bother you so much why dont you simply share account and deal with people asking if its you or your brother?

 

[PlasmaFrog]

Alright, firstly you must realize that like every other publisher/developer, they are a company and business that is focused on successfully selling their product to their masses. What's the motivation?

This, gentlemen. This is what drives every market in the known world, including your precious publishers and developers. If EA wants it, they're going to aim as high for it as they possibly can. This includes cheap marketing tactics, milking, and rushed deadlines from developers. This won't change either anytime in the near future unless everyone in the industry formed into a hipster overnight and began selling their "masterpieces" off for free. Face it, no developer is going to cling to the idea of a starving artist.

I'm done here.

 

[razer17]

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.

If you buy second hand, you are NOT their customor, because they don't get a fucking penny. It's not immoral, it's good, common business sense. They need to make money somehow. Games cost millions to make, and they need to pay their staff, their executives, their shareholders. If I pay £40 for a game brand new, I am helping a developer and publisher to make money. Why should you receive the same privileges for a cheaper price that the developer doesn't benefit from?

You do realize EA is not a developer, right?

They're a publisher. They don't make games.

But yeah, they don't care at all. Still, I'm fine because I don't like sports games anyway.
Or EA.

Tell that to my good friends and former roommates who worked for EA Tiburon making the sports games in question. He wasn't publishing, he was developing. Now he works for EA...Salt Lake, I think?

It's likely that EA the publisher is technically a different company to EA Tiburon the developer. It's a minor distinction, but chances are they are technically different companies, so EA is just a publisher.

So my question now is: Why are you still paying full retail for an expansion pack, when said retail comes with intrusive DRM and other devious crap?

Oh herp derp ALL SPORTS GAEMS R TEH SAME!!11!! I'm pretty sure that The difference between Fifa 10 and 11 (Both of which I have spent many, many hours on) than a lot sequels to "action" games. Also, when was the last time you bought a console game with DRM?

Their product are my hobbies. And latelly, the object of my hobbies suck.

Holy crap, maybe EA should just get on their knees and drop the middle man, since clearly their only purpose is to please you. I mean, it's not like they are a COMPANY, and that the sole purpose of a company is the gaining of profits.

 

[kemosabi4]

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.

If you buy second hand, you are NOT their customor, because they don't get a fucking penny. It's not immoral, it's good, common business sense. They need to make money somehow. Games cost millions to make, and they need to pay their staff, their executives, their shareholders. If I pay £40 for a game brand new, I am helping a developer and publisher to make money. Why should you receive the same privileges for a cheaper price that the developer doesn't benefit from?

The developer DOES NOT benefit from retailer sales, besides the fact that the retailer might have to order more! Once the retailer buys from EA, the profit is solely THEIRS, NO ONE ELSE'S! The idea that the developer deserves profit from someone else's sales is just fucking ridiculous.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Aren't there other companies that have used similar programs to try and get money from used games sales? I know EA is a big fat target for the rage of everyone with a keyboard but this trend is a little bigger then one company simply muhahah-ing to themselves.

Examples?

http://gamepolitics.com/2010/05/11/developer-labels-used-games-worse-piracy
http://www.1up.com/news/games-market-defrauding-industry-claims
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/08/buying-used-games-developers-publishers-dont-care-about-you.ars
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/20977
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/developers_wage_war_against_used_game_sales

That's just a list of article I could quickly ship up from a simple search for "used games developers" on Yahoo. I could look up more if I wanted to. Its clear that there are developers who are grumbling against used games sales. I didn't find any policy of charge extra for stuff like this but I think was at least two examples of execs making similar plans or at least wanted to come up with a system to combat used sales. I'm just trying to say that its not EA sitting alone as a gloating demon, its an issue that many developers and publishers are thinking about and one that no one seems to like. EA just happens to have this 10 dollar non-sense.

 

[kemosabi4]

Aren't there other companies that have used similar programs to try and get money from used games sales? I know EA is a big fat target for the rage of everyone with a keyboard but this trend is a little bigger then one company simply muhahah-ing to themselves.

Examples?

http://gamepolitics.com/2010/05/11/developer-labels-used-games-worse-piracy
http://www.1up.com/news/games-market-defrauding-industry-claims
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/08/buying-used-games-developers-publishers-dont-care-about-you.ars
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/20977
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/developers_wage_war_against_used_game_sales

That's just a list of article I could quickly ship up from a simple search for "used games developers" on Yahoo. I could look up more if I wanted to. Its clear that there are developers who are grumbling against used games sales. I didn't find any policy of charge extra for stuff like this but I think was at least two examples of execs making similar plans or at least wanted to come up with a system to combat used sales. I'm just trying to say that its not EA sitting alone as a gloating demon, its an issue that many developers and publishers are thinking about and one that no one seems to like. EA just happens to have this 10 dollar non-sense.

They can believe what they want, and I appreciate the time you took to gather all that, but I was referring to examples of programs used to block game sales.

 

[Typhon1388]

$10 is what £6.15? Is that really such a steep price to pay for multiplayer access? If you have a problem with it, vote with your wallet and don't pay it. If it wasn't working out for EA they would have stopped it or lowered the price. All they are doing is trying to run a successful business which keeps people in their jobs. There is no fortress of Doom that EA is constructing with their customer's money.

DA2 has come up a lot in this thread and its apparent flaws down to EA's interference. I'd advise you read this article on IGN [http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/116/1168985p1.html]. It explains a much better theory for the changes in DA2 which mainly boils down to the low completion rate of DA: O, which I will point out is one of my all time favorites and was therefore not a big fan of the changes myself.

 

[Gametek]

Their product are my hobbies. And latelly, the object of my hobbies suck.

Holy crap, maybe EA should just get on their knees and drop the middle man, since clearly their only purpose is to please you. I mean, it's not like they are a COMPANY, and that the sole purpose of a company is the gaining of profits.

The plothole in this capitalistic way of thinking is that if your product suck, no matter how much you pubblish it, on the long run I will not buy it. And as for the "only purpose of a company being..." think at the videogame as a book or as a film. If Ea would be doing the same thing on those, would you buy it?

 

[roostuf]

I have lost faith in EA, they are giving games a bad reputation and dont care about it.

OT:god i hate that frickin face...

 

[-Samurai-]

EA isn't giving away server access for free. They run the servers, they pay the bills and the people to keep the servers running. $10 is the price to access something they pay to keep running. You pay the price, or you don't get the service.

 

[Podunk]

Oh noes! They're going to hurt GAMESTOP!? That's targic.

Really though, I do agree that it is a flawed system. It would suck if my roommates had to pay ten bucks to play Left 4 Dead with me back when that was all the rage.

 

[razer17]

The developer DOES NOT benefit from retailer sales, besides the fact that the retailer might have to order more! Once the retailer buys from EA, the profit is solely THEIRS, NO ONE ELSE'S! The idea that the developer deserves profit from someone else's sales is just fucking ridiculous.

Okay, a retailer will pay EA X amount of money per copy of the game they want to purchase. However, they end up selling far fewer copies than they thought they would. Next time EA releases a game, retailer thinks "Wait, I'll order a lot fewer, because it's not going to sell". So yes, when I go into a shop and buy a game, the retailer doesn't go "Right, £15 for us, £20 for the publisher, and £5 to the taxman". It does impact it indirectly though, because the retailers will purchase more copies of games that will sell.

Secondly, the developer isn't profiting from someone elses sales. Not that they don't deserve to, because they do. They did the hard work of creating the game. What they are charging for is the ability to access extra content. They want something in return for providing the opportunity to play others using their incredibly expensive to run servers.

The plothole in this capitalistic way of thinking is that if your product suck, no matter how much you pubblish it, on the long run I will not buy it. And as for the "only purpose of a company being..." think at the videogame as a book or as a film. If Ea would be doing the same thing on those, would you buy it?

Well, the only people who care about online passes are the people buying used. And EA doesn't, and shouldn't, give a crap about those people, because they have no duty to them. They haven't had any money from them, so why should they give you the time of day.

AS for your book or film analogy, how would that even work? Maybe in films paying extra for bonus content? That happens already, which is why "extended edition" DVD's exist.

 

[Enrathi]

Their product are my hobbies. And latelly, the object of my hobbies suck.

Holy crap, maybe EA should just get on their knees and drop the middle man, since clearly their only purpose is to please you. I mean, it's not like they are a COMPANY, and that the sole purpose of a company is the gaining of profits.

The plothole in this capitalistic way of thinking is that if your product suck, no matter how much you pubblish it, on the long run I will not buy it. And as for the "only purpose of a company being..." think at the videogame as a book or as a film. If Ea would be doing the same thing on those, would you buy it?

Last I checked, I didn't need to go online and have them pay for my bandwidth with a book or movie. On the other hand, I also think EA should take their crappy servers out of the picture and let XBL, PSN, or private servers do the hosting for their online. Which would solve the project $10 debate, at least.

But in all honesty, I don't see it as an issue. Maybe because I buy my games new and don't really buy online-focused games, I'm much more into the single player or local multiplayer experience myself.

 

[Gametek]

AS for your book or film analogy, how would that even work? Maybe in films paying extra for bonus content? That happens already, which is why "extended edition" DVD's exist.

(That's kind of the most stupid thing ever done)

Edit added done at the end of sentence.