The Monster That Is EA

[MrTub]

"it allows us to accelerate our commitment to enhance premium online services to the entire robust EA SPORTS online community."

While the above quote is corporate BS...the practice of charging people for online access to games to ensure the developer continues to make the profits they deserve is an excellent practice that I hope becomes industry standard.

I will never understand why the customer is actually ENCOURAGING being charged extra money for a product that they shouldn't have to be.

Nobody is arguing that we should pay more. At least I'm arguing that it isnt wrong of EA to want some profit of second hand sale. Only people that doesnt like this are those who really doesnt care about the developer&Publisher.

 

[Arafiro]

I think the online pass concept is an excellent one, actually.
Wasn't it just the other day that an article on this very site quoted a developer describing used game sales being more harmful than piracy? This is a great way around that problem whilst still allowing second hand sales to take place at least on some level.

.. but maybe that's just because I aim to enter the games development industry and thus care about it in some way.

 

[SeriousIssues]

AND MAP PACKS SHOULD BE FREE!
RABBLE RABBLE

 

[theultimateend]

I'd be more insulted that to get the "complete experience" with Mass Effect 2 you need to spend 45 dollars >still<.

It's not even convenient either. The rest of the world finds steam to be a fine system to distribute content.

Not EA apparently :/. No I need to go on their service, buy silly ass points (at a terrible conversion ratio) and be certain to have some left over.

This was the major reason I stopped using the Xbox, I preferred being given a real dollar amount on my purchases.

I don't mind the "ticket for the new copy" thing they are doing. It's DLC prices from EA that are driving me bonkers.

There are other companies selling entire expansions for less than a mission pack from EA :/.

I know...supply and demand and the whole "Everything is worth what the purchaser will pay." Just wish folks would stop shelling out 15 dollars for a few gun reskins.

PS. Anything that shits on Gamestops sales is fine with me. Which is probably why I don't mind the ticket system. I end up buying the game new a few months later for 20 bucks on Amazon anyways. So no harm for me.

 

[TilMorrow]

Well I don't really play sports games as my general rule of thumb is what's the point if I'm not doing it in real life and it looks really tedious and boring, but isn't the code also meant to stop pirates from accessing the online features of a game as well as make money on used game sales? I mean for the used game sales the money goes to the store that's reselling it and that's fine and dandy but I have agree in some cases the online code for 10$ thing is a bit much. However the code thing isn't necessarily new just the fact if you don't have a fresh one you have to pay for it to online access.

 

[Callate]

In summary of my online pass point, EA thinks they can get away with limiting what people can do with what they bought and what they rightfully own.

On which point, EA would seem to be correct. They're "getting away with it" like gangbusters. I mean, what's the consumer likely to do? Organize another negligibly successful boycott? Attempt a lawsuit when the language of the EULA they "agreed" to is clearly against them?

I'm sure someone will bring up the "you don't buy the game, you buy the license yatta yatta" argument- again, that's what's spelled out in the EULA, and I won't bother in part because it's a letter of the law/spirit of the law issue and it would just obfuscate the fact that I agree with you that consumer rights in this regard are being eroded terribly.

In a better world, I'd love to see a law that a merchant that sold used games for more than 50% of MSRP had to give over 10% of that sale to the company that produced it, but such a thing would never come around and even if it did I'm sure someone would come up with a way to wiggle around it.

In the meantime, one has to consider that the companies that make these games really are getting kind of screwed. "Project Ten Dollar" and the like may make me grind my teeth more than a little, but I can't pretend I don't understand the incentive behind them.

While EA has made more than its share of missteps, occasionally they show a sliver of humanity, as when they kicked Tim Langdell out of his little "Edge" extortion scheme. I may fear what mandatory downloadable content will do to the structure and planning of future games, I may grimace at their advertising, but on balance I don't feel the searing contempt for or from them that I tend to when Activision gets in the news feed.

Now to be clear, "not the worst out there" is not the same thing as "good". But in all seriousness, does anyone have a real plan for getting the big boys to reform?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

AND MAP PACKS SHOULD BE FREE!
RABBLE RABBLE

Map packs should be free, unless they want to put together an expansion pack sized collection of maps and price it accordingly. Why should we pay for something that was free until a few years ago?

Edit: Let alone pay half the price of an expansion pack for something that contains, at most, a fifth of the content of one?

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Snip

I think paying for XBL is completely unacceptable and utterly disgraceful. You are paying for the right to play online, an expensive chat service and nothing else. Microsoft does not run proper dedicated servers for its game and most console games run on a P2P like network.

You cannot really pick and choose what laws and rules of contracts suit you. As I already said you do not buy the game you do not own it. What have gained is a licence to use one copy of said game which can be taken away at anytime. They are well within their rights to do this to discourage Preowned sales. Just because you do not agree with their current business model make it illegal and against their right as a company to do so. If you do not like it talk with your wallet like most other people do and do not buy the games.

Paying for XBL is perfectly fine. The reason you pay for XBL is because they provide a better experience than PSN. They have more features (Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, Last.fm) and better security (less downtime, absolutely no hacking whatsoever). What's not acceptable is being expected to have to pay the game companies to access these features.

And my point for ownership is that those terms and conditions SHOULDN'T EXIST. If you pay for it, then you should be able to do what you want with it, no restrictions or limitations. You pay for Live, you get full access. You pay for an EA game, you have to pay extra to access all of it. That is what I can't stand.

You do not pay for any of those things. To use Netflix you need a Netflix account. Same for the Sky thing they have going you need a Sky account or actually own a Sky box. You do not suddenly get all that stuff because you pay for XBL. Facebook and Twitter you can get for free anyway. If you really think that XBL is unhackable or really has much better security just because PSN has been down you need to get your head out of the clouds. If someone really wanted to they could hack XBL just as easy as PSN. So don't kid yourself the money is going straight into Microsoft's deep pockets.

No you shouldn't be able to access all of it. By that logic I should not be able to ban you from my dedicated server just because you bought the game. That makes no sense. If I have a dedicated server I can ban you from it and deprive you of that part of the game because I own it. Same as EA owns the online portion of the game as they run the servers(if it is servers if not you shouldn't even need XBL). What is wrong with purchasing a preowned game for less than &#128;20 or whatever currency you use and pay an extra 10 to play online. You are paying ?30 for a full game and that is still a good price in my opinion.

No, hacking XBL is not easy, because we PAY FOR SECURITY. If you could hack it just as easy, then why hasn't it happened yet, whereas PSN has been hacked numerous times!

Yes, you should be able to kick me off the server. Because you payed for that server. You are the owner. You are perfectly within your rights to ban me, because you are the owner of the server, not the game developer.

Yes hacking XBL would be just as easy as PSN. You don't pay for security you pay because they know you will pay for it. A certain amount could go to security but when something makes half of your money for the year it is just a cash cow. No way Microsoft spends about 1/2 of their revenue on XBL security. If they did if a hacker or team of hackers wanted to they could still hack XBL. The only reason PSN has been hacked is that it has become an easy target and certain groups have deemed it a target in the first place. Also PSN was hacked once. The other hacks have been other services provided by Sony you can't hack PSN if it is offline.

Yes I should and so should EA if they own the servers you play on which they do unless they are on a P2P system. So EA is the owner of the servers and therefore well within their rights to ban you. If a Dev has their own servers(which they nearly always do) and they are the only servers available(which is the case on consoles unless it is P2P or a game with proper dedicated servers) they can stop you from using the online.

 

[kemosabi4]

Yes hacking XBL would be just as easy as PSN. You don't pay for security you pay because they know you will pay for it. A certain amount could go to security but when something makes half of your money for the year it is just a cash cow. No way Microsoft spends about 1/2 of their revenue on XBL security. If they did if a hacker or team of hackers wanted to they could still hack XBL. The only reason PSN has been hacked is that it has become an easy target and certain groups have deemed it a target in the first place. Also PSN was hacked once. The other hacks have been other services provided by Sony you can't hack PSN if it is offline.

Yes I should and so should EA if they own the servers you play on which they do unless they are on a P2P system. So EA is the owner of the servers and therefore well within their rights to ban you. If a Dev has their own servers(which they nearly always do) and they are the only servers available(which is the case on consoles unless it is P2P or a game with proper dedicated servers) they can stop you from using the online.

I never said they spend half of their revenue on security. That would be ridiculous. But they spend a small amount on security. And the idea that they simply ignore security just so they can pocket our money is absurd. We pay because it gives them more room to develop. The belief that they keep all of our subscription money for profit is an irrational conspiracy theory.

And you think the only reason that PSN was hacked rather than XBL was that they were "targeted"? Give me a fucking break. PSN was "targeted" because their security is childish. Do you know why? Because YOU DON'T PAY FOR THE SERVICE.

And no, they shouldn't be able to deny me service, because I paid for their game, and therefore deserve full access, unless I do something against their rules, that's how service works. You pay, and you get the full experience, unless you break the rules.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

You know what else justifies piracy? The entire argument that used games are worse than piracy. A healthy used market is a very good thing, both for the consumer, who has the option of saving some money, and for the producer, who has to sell a bunch of copies initially for the used market to get started. If used games are actually worse than piracy, then piracy must be a really good thing for everyone involved.

Note: I am not condoning piracy, merely pointing out a glaring flaw in the "used games are bad" argument; the developers themselves are effectively condoning piracy here.

Edit: To be a little bit more on topic here, I can personally vouch that if my options were to pay $60 on every game I buy or to quit gaming, I would quit gaming. I have plenty of books and movies to keep me occupied, and I can buy more at reasonable prices if I manage to run out. I never have and never will pay $60 for a videogame; aside from a few very rare exceptions, they aren't worth more than $20 to me, and that's being generous. If the publishers are so allergic to my money that they won't take it at that rate, Gamestop will, as will Steam when the sales roll around. They can deal.

 

[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.

You know what else justifies piracy? The entire argument that used games are worse than piracy. A healthy used market is a very good thing, both for the consumer, who has the option of saving some money, and for the producer, who has to sell a bunch of copies initially for the used market to get started. If used games are actually worse than piracy, then piracy must be a really good thing for everyone involved.

Note: I am not condoning piracy, merely pointing out a glaring flaw in the "used games are bad" argument; the developers themselves are effectively condoning piracy here.

Edit: To be a little bit more on topic here, I can personally vouch that if my options were to pay $60 on every game I buy or to quit gaming, I would quit gaming. I have plenty of books and movies to keep me occupied, and I can buy more at reasonable prices if I manage to run out. I never have and never will pay $60 for a videogame; aside from a few very rare exceptions, they aren't worth more than $20 to me, and that's being generous. If the publishers are so allergic to my money that they won't take it at that rate, Gamestop will, as will Steam when the sales roll around. They can deal.

I never once stated that used games are worse than privacy, however the effect is the same, the money a publisher/developer earns from a used game being sold at gamestop and a pirated game being downloaded is the very same, 0 dollars and 0 cents. However piracy is illegal, used games aren't.

Also, 60$ is a very reasonable price, you get 20 hours worth of content if you buy the right games (without multiplayer), for 8 bucks you can watch a 90 minute long movie (without the option to replay it, for that you have to spend 20$). So games have a ratio of 1$:20 minutes, while movies have a ratio of 1$:12 minutes. So even a brand new game pays off more than a trip to the movies or the DVD shop.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

You know what else justifies piracy? The entire argument that used games are worse than piracy. A healthy used market is a very good thing, both for the consumer, who has the option of saving some money, and for the producer, who has to sell a bunch of copies initially for the used market to get started. If used games are actually worse than piracy, then piracy must be a really good thing for everyone involved.

Note: I am not condoning piracy, merely pointing out a glaring flaw in the "used games are bad" argument; the developers themselves are effectively condoning piracy here.

Edit: To be a little bit more on topic here, I can personally vouch that if my options were to pay $60 on every game I buy or to quit gaming, I would quit gaming. I have plenty of books and movies to keep me occupied, and I can buy more at reasonable prices if I manage to run out. I never have and never will pay $60 for a videogame; aside from a few very rare exceptions, they aren't worth more than $20 to me, and that's being generous. If the publishers are so allergic to my money that they won't take it at that rate, Gamestop will, as will Steam when the sales roll around. They can deal.

I never once stated that used games are worse than privacy, however the effect is the same, the money a publisher/developer earns from a used game being sold at gamestop and a pirated game being downloaded is the very same, 0 dollars and 0 cents. However piracy is illegal, used games aren't.

Also, 60$ is a very reasonable price, you get 20 hours worth of content if you buy the right games (without multiplayer), for 8 bucks you can watch a 90 minute long movie (without the option to replay it, for that you have to spend 20$). So games have a ratio of 1$:20 minutes, while movies have a ratio of 1$:12 minutes. So even a brand new game pays off more than a trip to the movies or the DVD shop.

You may not have said that, but the people who provided your argument (i.e., big publishers like EA) explicitly have. As for the cost per hour ratio, look at season boxed sets of DVDs. I can go down to walmart right now and pick up two seasons of Stargate SG1 for $20. That's 44 hours of entertainment for a third of the cost of a videogame, or less than $.50 an hour. Also, I don't especially care for videogames that last more than 10 hours in the first place; they never hold my attention well enough that I actually bother to finish them. Should I count hours that I'm not actually enjoying in that figure? Heck, even if I did like games like that, the average game these days is shorter than 10 hours. If you really want to play the "dollars per hour" game, please explain to me how a six hour game is worth $60. That works out to $10 an hour -- at that point, I may as well hire somebody to personally entertain me, because it's not a bad starting wage. Heck, if I really wanted bang for my buck, I'd spend a couple of bucks on a Dover edition of War and Peace, and be "entertained" for months as I try to slog through one of the longest books ever written. Hours per dollar just isn't a good measure when it comes to entertainment products.

To conclude, whether game developers want to admit it or not, they are directly in competition with books, DVDs, and CDs for my entertainment dollar. They all offer a similar value to me, because an entertainment product's worth is not based on the length, but its quality; for example, I wouldn't expect to pay more for a copy of The Fellowship of the Ring than I would a copy of The Dark Crystal, despite the fact that the former is twice as long as the latter. Rather, I would expect to pay a similar rate for both, because they are both excellent films. Why would I pay $60 for a videogame, even the best videogame in history, when I can get the best films in history for $20 or less? And why in the multiverse would I pay $60 for something mediocre, even if it's 200 hours long?

 

[Sucal]

Am I the only one who actually supports the online pass? I mean, I buy most of my games used, but that's because I live in Australia. You know, the country where you can order in new games from Britain and america, and still buy them cheaper then from EBgames as used.

I mean, a lot of the time its not actually the publishers fault for prices and such but anyway..

What I was trying to say is that project ten dollar and all that is merely a way for the company to stay in business. If EA gets closed down, then it could be mass firings at Bioware, which means no more rpg goodness. As it has been said before by others, if you don't like online passes, buy the game new and actually support the game developer.

 

[squid5580]

What exactly are they withholding from the renter/borrower that will effect their decision to buy or not to buy exactly? You still get the core game regardless. The game mechanics are not withheld by the online pass. That should be enough for anyone to decide whether or not they like the game. The only thing mp changes is playing against people instead of bots.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Yes hacking XBL would be just as easy as PSN. You don't pay for security you pay because they know you will pay for it. A certain amount could go to security but when something makes half of your money for the year it is just a cash cow. No way Microsoft spends about 1/2 of their revenue on XBL security. If they did if a hacker or team of hackers wanted to they could still hack XBL. The only reason PSN has been hacked is that it has become an easy target and certain groups have deemed it a target in the first place. Also PSN was hacked once. The other hacks have been other services provided by Sony you can't hack PSN if it is offline.

Yes I should and so should EA if they own the servers you play on which they do unless they are on a P2P system. So EA is the owner of the servers and therefore well within their rights to ban you. If a Dev has their own servers(which they nearly always do) and they are the only servers available(which is the case on consoles unless it is P2P or a game with proper dedicated servers) they can stop you from using the online.

I never said they spend half of their revenue on security. That would be ridiculous. But they spend a small amount on security. And the idea that they simply ignore security just so they can pocket our money is absurd. We pay because it gives them more room to develop. The belief that they keep all of our subscription money for profit is an irrational conspiracy theory.

And you think the only reason that PSN was hacked rather than XBL was that they were "targeted"? Give me a fucking break. PSN was "targeted" because their security is childish. Do you know why? Because YOU DON'T PAY FOR THE SERVICE.

And no, they shouldn't be able to deny me service, because I paid for their game, and therefore deserve full access, unless I do something against their rules, that's how service works. You pay, and you get the full experience, unless you break the rules.

Well I'm sorry if that is not what you meant but the way you phrased it you sounded like basically all XBL money went to security. To be honest yes some does go security and other projects but the only reason XBL is the absurd amount it was and is (and then went up in price) is because they know you will pay a ridiculous amount for it.

No PSN being targeted is not the only reason they were hacked. I am sure there were and are other reasons but since every single thing Sony owns or runs is being hacked then yes I would have to say they are getting a lot of flak as they are being targeted. Thinking otherwise given that Sony has been hacked on about 6 different fronts in the last 2 months shows that some groups are out to get them. Once again it is not because you don't pay for PSN as a lot of these services are payed for. If people are determined enough they will hack something same as breaking into a house that is an unfortunate fact of life. Locks are just their as a deterrent but they will never really stop anyone.

Yes you bought the game preowned. That is perfectly fine but EA/whoever haven't seen a cent of that money. As I said if they do run servers which if it is server based multiplayer they most likely do those server costs money. Do you expect to play on those servers without having contributed anything(I say knowing that retailers do buy games off the pubs so they will only get money off more orders. You have to buy more for there to be more orders)? So to go back to Terms and conditions yes you have bought the right to play the game but you obviously haven't in EA's eyes bought the right to play the game online. Aside from that the online portion is not necessary in most games(games that require it are TF2, Quake Wars, etc).

To go back to your thing about "owning" things giving you full rights(I once again say this assuming a server based system is in use) in your train of thought EA are well within their rights to not let you play on their servers. Since they have a monopoly on servers you can't play the game online.

The only people this really affects are people in the one household (which yes this a bad side effect of their chosen method I am not saying it is not a bad side effect). I really don't see the problem with buying the game preowned and it costing the range of ?10-?20 and then paying and an extra ?10 that is really an optional part of the game anyway. Multiplayer is not the be all and end all a game unless it is designed to be a multiplayer game should be worth its selling price on single player alone. If it isn't why are you playing the game anyway. I really do not see the problem(aside from the one mentioned) about this and things like project ?10. I think paying about ?60 for a game and getting all subsequent DLC is not a particularly bad deal if the DLC is adequate.

 

[M4t3us]

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?

Sports games are not all the same, EA sports games are all the same, with the only noticeable differences being a slightly better graphical detail and a roster update... Come to think of it these last few instalments are, exclusively, the latter. When was the last time I bought a console game with DRM? Did the Saturn games have DRM? Because that's the last console I ever bought games for.

 

[GiantRaven]

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.

I'm saddened that not one single person commented on the this because it was probably the single best point made in this thread. EA run their own multiplayer servers and therefore are incurring costs for running it.

Why should they let people play on that for free? I honestly don't see the problem here.

 

[M4t3us]

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.

I'm saddened that not one single person commented on the this because it was probably the single best point made in this thread. EA run their own multiplayer servers and therefore are incurring costs for running it.

Why should they let people play on that for free? I honestly don't see the problem here.

A good point doesn't need encouragement, it can stand on its own very well. ^.^

Although I don't believe EA can't run/upgrade their servers with yearly releases of $60 (?50) expansion packs, which makes the extra $10 just a profit generator.

 

[-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.

I'm saddened that not one single person commented on the this because it was probably the single best point made in this thread. EA run their own multiplayer servers and therefore are incurring costs for running it.

Why should they let people play on that for free? I honestly don't see the problem here.

A good point doesn't need encouragement, it can stand on its own very well. ^.^

Although I don't believe EA can't run/upgrade their servers with yearly releases of $60 (?50) expansion packs, which makes the extra $10 just a profit generator.

They absolutely could, but they shouldn't and don't have to.

 

[M4t3us]

They absolutely could, but they shouldn't and don't have to.

Which is why I found your original post very good to stand on its own. I just had to comment because someone actually thought it needed an extra hand. ^.^