EA *facepalm"

[cimerians]

I must accept that the business models I am comfortable with are rapidly changing, but that doesn't mean I have to like the changes or that I will enthusiastically adopt them.

 

Wish more people would think like you do. I think though with the help of a lot of blogs and fan site's these things are no longer going unchallenged. You have places like Kotaku and Joystiq light some fires thankfully.

 

I do still enjoy games right now but I simply am 1,000 times more picky of what I buy and from what publisher it comes from. I avoid games from my turd list unless I really love the game and its legit.

 

I changed my habits after the PS3 date bug issue and the Final Fight DRM. I simply am cutting back a LOT. Feels good too....I get to spend it on another game without those issues on a developer\publisher who deserves it.

 

I can relate to Mord, I'm glad I got a crapload of old games. Nothing wrong with playing them and avoiding some of the new games.

 

As far as used games go, I try not to buy used games ever. Really hard to get new old games though. Thats why the big question will be.....what is the future going to be for the collector?

 

We're all doomed.

[xg4bx]

but why is it only game publishers who seem to openly whine about a secondary market? i have honestly never seen simon&schuster crying about amazon selling used books.

 

to me this is like buying a used car then having to send the manufacturer a check for the key.

 

i'm literally done buying new games except for the occasional new title like 3D dot heroes (out today!). considering how quickly i get bored with most games it's no great loss to me. this just means my gamefly account will get more of a workout.

 

i honestly wouldn't be so upset if most of the games these days weren't 4 hour long, online focused nonsense. but having to pay extra just because i want to try a game out and save a few bucks is a bitter pill to swallow.

 

whats even more unfair is that i end up buying dlc for used games i buy so now i'll be double dipped.

 

i hate to say it but i think it's time for another collapse. these companies need to be utterly humbled again.

[xg4bx]

I don't know about anybody else, but I'm turtling up. My desire to buy games for current consoles is pretty much gone.

It's almost halfway through the year and so far I've bought exactly 1 new game--a discounted psp downloadable title. (not counting the dozens of used vintage games I've bought of course)

 

but

• 
   
  
• I'm not buying downloadables anymore (last year I bought dozens)
  
• I'm not buying psn movies anymore (thank netflix)
  
• I'm not buying dlc anymore, since it's never worth it
  
• I'm not buying modern used titles anymore thanks to EA
  
• I'm not buying a 'collector edition' of anything, since there's nothing of value to collect
  

 

What's happened is that my very soul has limited itself to purchasing the 1-2 games a year that I'm sure are actually worth the full price of admission at launch. I'm down to Modnation racers and Gran turismo 5 this year. Sorry EA.

 

If current gen games become as worthless as old pc games (as I suspect) I wonder if that will raise or lower the value of our collections? Truly collectible games aren't made anymore, but the demand for fully-functional vintage titles them may drop to nothing because of that.

 

amen. thanks to netflix i never need to buy or dl a movie again....unless they somehow screw it up.

 

i used to buy alot of collectors editions. every one sucked but i did it anyway. no more.

 

since i started being pushed away by modern stuff it's freed my mind and wallet to go back and get heavily into ps2 stuff. i discovered i LOVE the shin megami, kingdom hearts and NIS titles, stuff i never even gave a second glance at before.

 

since i cleared my mind and time of online gaming i've kinda rediscovered and got heavily back into reading. i spend more time scanning amazon than i do looking at game news now.

[Chickybaby]

If you have an Ipod Touch or I supose Ipad now check out Stanza - it's a free reader with tonnes/thousands of downloadable books, short stories, essays, classics, comics etc in quite a few languages even. I also love amazon for books that I don't read from my friend or stanza.

I love carrying around a library of 1500+ with me in my pocket. I have been a book addict all my life and have lived part time and had keys to my dear friends Bookstore since I was 14 (ahh a few yrs ago ).

[Tr3vor]

If Silent Rob is right about his Gamestop rant, I will NEVER buy a "new" game there again. If any of you have seen his rant videos, he says that the employees and managers get to take home a new game for 2 days and play it, bring it back and sell it for the "new" price. What if they used the code, then some poor dude buys the game, sol, you cant play it unless they pay an extra 10$!

[SoulBlazer]

The problem is that I do most of my game buying these days as DLC, through XBox Live. I accept the fact that I may only be able to play the game for a few years in return for the cheaper prices. So I don't know how this move is going to affect that. As I said, I have mixed feelings about this issue.

[moycon]

I must accept that the business models I am comfortable with are rapidly changing, but that doesn't mean I have to like the changes or that I will enthusiastically adopt them.

 

No one expects you to.

 

Hell if your folks and their peers had it there way, we probably wouldn't be discussing this because there would be no computers or internet. My dad to this day sticks to his claim PCs are too complicated for anything other than reading emails and too expensive to buy to just do that. This is usually before he breaks out his vinyl records. Personally I'm glad companies don't listen to the crotchety old men when they bitch about change!!

[akator]

I must accept that the business models I am comfortable with are rapidly changing, but that doesn't mean I have to like the changes or that I will enthusiastically adopt them.

 

No one expects you to.

 

Hell if your folks and their peers had it there way, we probably wouldn't be discussing this because there would be no computers or internet. My dad to this day sticks to his claim PCs are too complicated for anything other than reading emails and too expensive to buy to just do that. This is usually before he breaks out his vinyl records. Personally I'm glad companies don't listen to the crotchety old men when they bitch about change!!

 

You dagnabbit whippersnapper! Get off my lawn and leave me be!

 

[moycon]

You dagnabbit whippersnapper! Get off my lawn and leave me be!

 

Hey now, I'm still waiting on parachute pants to make a comeback.

[Austin]

I also don't understand how GameStop can be supporting this. This is going to hurt their bottom line -- along with any other store that buys and sells used games.

 

Oh, that's easy for them.. Begin to pay employees even less (Is that even remotely possible?), and then pile more work and responsibilities on the employees' shoulders while they're at it...

Edited May 12, 2010 by Austin

[Mendon]

 

No one expects you to.

 

Hell if your folks and their peers had it there way, we probably wouldn't be discussing this because there would be no computers or internet. My dad to this day sticks to his claim PCs are too complicated for anything other than reading emails and too expensive to buy to just do that. This is usually before he breaks out his vinyl records. Personally I'm glad companies don't listen to the crotchety old men when they bitch about change!!

 

In my estimation, there is a big difference between accepting change and being taken advantage of. I wasn't dragged kicking and screaming into the Blu-ray era, but gladly made my many purchases. I didn't throw rocks thru the windows of my local Apple store, but instead smiled in contentment as I bought my iPhone. I didn't crash my gas guzzler thru the front door of the local Toyota dealership in protest, but instead took proud possession of my Prius.

 

But if Sony wants to remove features from my already purchased PS3..... yeah, I'll bitch. If EA and the other software companies want to try to control what I do with the software I've already purchased... yeah, I'll bitch. If companies don't fully explain the limitations of their products before I purchase them (yeah, I'm glaring at you Capcom).... yeah, I'll bitch. If Sony or MS or Ninty release a mandatory firmware update that renders my older games unplayable..... yeah, I'll bitch.

 

As I see it, there is a big difference between being a crotchety old man that resists change and being a consumer that refuses to be treated as an idiot who will accept anything that corporations put out .

 

(fires up my DC and loads Crazy Taxi..... ahhh, now life is GRAND).

 

 

Mendon

Edited May 12, 2010 by Mendon

[Mendon]

I also don't understand how GameStop can be supporting this. This is going to hurt their bottom line -- along with any other store that buys and sells used games.

 

As I've read it, GameStop has cut a deal with EA to sell the $10 (or whatever price they will be) online cards, so they are happy. And I would be willing to bet that GS won't lose any money on used games as they will simply lower the trade-in price they offer.

 

The one who is really going to be hurt by this is GameFly.... who will rent games they can't play online??

 

 

Mendon

[xg4bx]

If Silent Rob is right about his Gamestop rant, I will NEVER buy a "new" game there again. If any of you have seen his rant videos, he says that the employees and managers get to take home a new game for 2 days and play it, bring it back and sell it for the "new" price. What if they used the code, then some poor dude buys the game, sol, you cant play it unless they pay an extra 10$!

 

i used to work at gs, i was there for 2.5 years. it's true. we'd bring home games day of release. for those 2 years i played almost every new release. i'm not scummy though, i never used codes or dl tokens.

[xg4bx]

If you have an Ipod Touch or I supose Ipad now check out Stanza - it's a free reader with tonnes/thousands of downloadable books, short stories, essays, classics, comics etc in quite a few languages even. I also love amazon for books that I don't read from my friend or stanza.

I love carrying around a library of 1500+ with me in my pocket. I have been a book addict all my life and have lived part time and had keys to my dear friends Bookstore since I was 14 (ahh a few yrs ago ).

 

i've also been a life long reader. i've eyeballed ereaders and the like but just like games, i prefer original hardware .

 

the absolute irony of my reading habit is that my fiancée was an employee of a bookstore i frequented and my best friend is a published horror author with his 3rd novel coming out this summer. cheap plug: Lorne Dixon on amazon.

[moycon]

In my estimation, there is a big difference between accepting change and being taken advantage of.

 

Yeah but, we're not discussing any of those other things you brought up. Those were discussed in another thread and I agree with you on some of those points and I've bitched myself about it. (Especially selling a game without disclosing that it HAS to be connected to the internet to play...outrageous)

 

This thread is about a company charging a person $10 to play the cheap used copy of a game they made, on their servers, if that person wants to play the game online. No one is being taken advantage of.

 

This shouldn't come as a shock to any person who has had an interest in video games in the last decade. These companies have been complaining about the sales of used games for a long time, this is a way for them to make sure they are compensated and make a profit when they spend months designing and making a game. It helps them pay for the networking equipment, bandwidth etc.... You don't have to pay them $10 to play your used Crazy Taxi 4 HD online if you don't want to. No one will force you and you can still get a physical copy of the game (sans online)It's no different then your DC copy of Crazy Taxi.

 

If you think this is bad, wait till they mostly get rid of physical media for video games. We all know it'll eventually happen. Disks copy of games will go the way of vinyl records. Sure you'll be able to get them, but expect to pay a bit more.

Doesn't bother me really. I'm spending $100+ a month to keep boxes of video games I haven't played in years in storage right now while we try to sell our house (It seem most "normal people don't want to look at a house cluttered full of video games... imagine that!) To be honest, beside the cool Collectors Editions, I'm not going to miss the physical media.

[Austin]

In my estimation, there is a big difference between accepting change and being taken advantage of.

This thread is about a company charging a person $10 to play the cheap used copy of a game they made, on their servers, if that person wants to play the game online. No one is being taken advantage of.

 

...It helps them pay for the networking equipment, bandwidth etc.... You don't have to pay them $10 to play your used Crazy Taxi 4 HD online if you don't want to.

 

Right.. And you're missing the point of "being taken advantage of". Maybe in the PS3 camp it's a little more understandable, but with the 360, it's straight-up rape.

 

As it's been stated already, a $40 to $50 deposit is required each year in order to play 360 games online. To my understanding, MS runs the servers for the games on XBL. Supposedly to this date, at least 20 million Live accounts have been created, and using an example of at least five million regular paying users here, MS probably rakes in at least $250 MILLION a year.. and that's a low-ball estimate. I *highly* doubt they need any more money to keep the servers upgraded, maintained and stable.

 

With that in mind, what would giving extra money to companies like EA do? Sounds like a whole lot of nothing to me, considering the work in hosting the servers to begin with is in Microsoft's hands, which we already give them money for.

 

Regarding other platforms, it may sound like a noble cause, but it sounds to me more like another corporate scam. These guys are running out of ways to achieve their profit-oriented goals and are doing every thing they can to milk us as the times go on.

 

Another thought that just popped into my mind: If used game sales were such a big deal to these million/billion dollar companies, why don't they penetrate the used market themselves? GameStop essentially dominates the market and has very little serious competition. Imagine if, say, EA jumped into the ring and started selling used games via retail.. For one, they would have no longer have a right to complain, and two, they could potentially provided very stiff competition. That's always a good thing in the retail sector, right? heh...

Edited May 12, 2010 by Austin

[HammR25]

Another thought that just popped into my mind: If used game sales were such a big deal to these million/billion dollar companies, why don't they penetrate the used market themselves? GameStop essentially dominates the market and has very little serious competition. Imagine if, say, EA jumped into the ring and started selling used games via retail.. For one, they would have no longer have a right to complain, and two, they could potentially provided very stiff competition. That's always a good thing in the retail sector, right? heh...

How would EA do that? They have no physical stores. Amazon is already doing this online. Publishers always have to be careful not to compete with the people they distribute their games through anyway. There's a reason they made sure people will be able to pay the extra $10 when they buy a used game at Gamestop. They want to keep the distribution channel happy.

Edited May 12, 2010 by HammR25

[Austin]

How would EA do that? They have no physical stores. Amazon is already doing this online. Publishers always have to be careful not to compete with the people they distribute their games through anyway. There's a reason they made sure people will be able to pay the extra $10 when they buy a used game at Gamestop. They want to keep the distribution channel happy.

 

Using EA as an example, like any new venture, they could figure out a game plan and eventually open a test location and gauge the general reaction. Internal operations are mostly already set up (HR, company tech support, etc.) and the longest part would be creating a sku-based inventory and price guide for used items. Obviously this isn't something that would happen overnight, but it's something that's definitely feasible.

 

Would they piss off the the chains that already sell their games? Possibly. On the other hand, starting off small, other stores may still feel obligated to carry EA titles. Considering their sports games in particular sell so well, it would be money lost if those opposed stopped carrying EA products out of spite. Kind of an interesting scenario to theorize and dream about (Be a dreamer, maaaaaan!).

 

Maybe something as ballsy and outlandish as that is what one of these companies needs to do to keep things fresh without raping the consumers in the fashion they are doing now.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Austin

[chrisbid]

some thoughts

 

- what percentage of gamers play their games online? ea sports games in general, and madden in particular are usually best sellers every year. yet only the hardcore players go to play online, they tend to wipe up the floor with novices. i would be surprised if more than 50% of madden purchases played online.

 

- how will the code work? will it be a card slipped into the packaging, similar to how nintendo handles club nintendo points? will the game ask for the code to be entered before it boots, or when a gamer selects the "online game" option?

 

- if the code is not required at the initial boot, its feasible that unused code cards can be easy to come by with just a little digging in the used game bins.

 

 

 

i hate the entitlement attitude publishers have when it comes to used game sales. no matter how they twist logic or the law, they have no right to tell consumers what to do with their products once they are purchased. but, charging extra for an online service that is not contained on the disc is well within bounds.

 

but there are a lot of question on the specifics. like i said, this may not be as horrific as people are imagining it to be. but if it is, ea will only be eating their own tail.

[Mendon]

Yeah but, we're not discussing any of those other things you brought up. Those were discussed in another thread and I agree with you on some of those points and I've bitched myself about it. (Especially selling a game without disclosing that it HAS to be connected to the internet to play...outrageous)

 

This thread is about a company charging a person $10 to play the cheap used copy of a game they made, on their servers, if that person wants to play the game online. No one is being taken advantage of.

 

This shouldn't come as a shock to any person who has had an interest in video games in the last decade. These companies have been complaining about the sales of used games for a long time, this is a way for them to make sure they are compensated and make a profit when they spend months designing and making a game. It helps them pay for the networking equipment, bandwidth etc.... You don't have to pay them $10 to play your used Crazy Taxi 4 HD online if you don't want to. No one will force you and you can still get a physical copy of the game (sans online)It's no different then your DC copy of Crazy Taxi.

 

My post was mainly a response to your implying in two posts within this thread that complaining about gaming issues. like this EA one, is simply a matter of being "old and crotchety and set in our ways" and resisting change. Speaking only for myself, being old and crotchety and resisting any change within the gaming industry isn't a factor at all... feeling like I'm constantly being taken advantage of as a consumer is.

 

I'm a gamer.... I love games... I've spent thousands of dollars over the years on my hobby. ... I have a pretty big collection of games and gaming related materials. And I admit, after experiencing what Sony has recently unleashed upon its customers, that I'm somewhat PO'd. But for me, it isn't a case of my resisting change, but is a case of not liking the direction that gaming, a hobby I love, is now taking.

 

Even this issue with EA and its new $10 online policy for used game purchasers, I believe, shows a disregard for its gaming customers. Why would I feel this way? Well, I alluded to it in a previous post: "Since I don't play many games online, I wonder if EA will do solo-gamers a favor: will they sell two versions of their games, one with an online code and one without the code, and price the non-code version $10 to $15 cheaper than the online-code version???? They will now have the capability of doing so and maybe I and others would prefer the $49.99 version of Tiger Woods or Madden!!"

 

What EA has said with their new policy is that $10 of the $60 price tag of their games goes towards providing and maintaining servers. And EA has now also said that they can simply and easily control online access for their products by including a one-use only code included with game purchase. By saying both statements, its no stretch of the imagination to see that EA has the capability of releasing products in two forms: one without online access and one with online access. And the price of the games can easily reflect this.

 

If EA decides to charge purchasers of used titles $10 for server cost and online play, then they also can cut the price for those who may never use their servers or play online by simply releasing two versions of the game. If EA doesn't institute such a method, then in my estimation they are taking advantage of people who never use/tax their servers or require EA support.

 

And if this $10 fee is simply a matter of EA being ".... compensated and make a profit when they spend months designing and making a game...." then the MANY who complain about DLC being already included on the disk when purchased and they are paying a fee to simply unlock it, should be silent also. After all, isn't this also just a case of EA being rightly compensated?

 

Please remember, I didn't start this argument, EA did when they opened their big mouths and bigger wallets.

 

 

I totally agree with you that the days of physical media are numbered and soon all gaming will be DD only, as a means to rid the world of used game sales and cut costs/increase profits. And to take it further, these DD titles will be tied to one and ONLY ONE console in an effort to combat piracy. I suspect it will have no effect on piracy as nothing the developers have tried has, going back to my days of purchasing an Atari800.

 

I don't think I ever posted it here, but I've always suspected that Sony used the PSPGo as a trial to see if customers are willing to accept DD as a means for gaming. It may not be currently successful but with the success of the iPhone (and similar phones) and iPad and the amount of money being spent on APP's and games, total DD gaming is right around the corner.

 

 

Mendon

Edited May 12, 2010 by Mendon

[legeek]

I am with Moycon and Jess on this one.

 

But...fun bit of irony. The bad guys in Mass Effect 2 are called...The Collectors.

[SoulBlazer]

I saw one thing eariler that I wanted to correct -- EA has it's OWN severs. When I go online to play NCAA or Madden, I have to log in with my own EA account, and if it's down (but XBox Live is up) then I can't play.

 

I'm also pretty sure that you don't even need to to log into XBox Live -- just put the game disc into your console, it starts the game automaticaly, and you can select to go online from the game menu.

 

So yes, EA is paying to maintain it's own servers. They choose to do that as opposed to running everything through XBox Live. (And their server is pretty good, with live connections to ESPN and ESPN Radio and other things.)

 

As someone else asked eariler, though, how many people go online with their sports games? I have some friends who do it just to get updates.

[Mendon]

some thoughts

 

- what percentage of gamers play their games online? ea sports games in general, and madden in particular are usually best sellers every year. yet only the hardcore players go to play online, they tend to wipe up the floor with novices. i would be surprised if more than 50% of madden purchases played online.

 

I don't know, but EA has released figures that FIFA 10 has sold over 10 million copies and World Cup has already sold over 2 million copies. I would suspect that there is a lot of online soccer being played with numbers like those.

 

 

Mendon

[moycon]

Right.. And you're missing the point of "being taken advantage of". Maybe in the PS3 camp it's a little more understandable, but with the 360, it's straight-up rape.

 

As it's been stated already, a $40 to $50 deposit is required each year in order to play 360 games online. To my understanding, MS runs the servers for the games on XBL.

 

If this were true, then I might agree with you. It's not. EA runs and maintains it's own servers, they just connect to the Live Network.

 

Here's a petition to sign to change that...I wouldn't hold my breath though!

 

http://www.petitiononline.com/113089/petition.html

 

In my opinion this is the best post in this thread..."gamers are grossly self-entitled and need to recognize the realities of the free market."

 

I've said it before. If $10 is too much to dedicate to your passion, that is if you think paying $10 is way too much for years of online fun, and don't want to give EA your hard earned money to support their network, don't do it. A person can go play Bejeweled on Facebook, or collect PS1 games or simply play offline.

 

I don't think I ever posted it here, but I've always suspected that Sony used the PSPGo as a trial to see if customers are willing to accept DD as a means for gaming.

 

Heck I think all 3 of the console makers are getting consumers used to the download only business model. Pull up the dash on any of the 3 consoles and what do you see? A store!! Just a matter of time. Us old timers just have to get used to some changes.

 

BTW I wasn't meaning to imply that people should be silent or that they were just being set in their ways, if they are getting ripped off like in the case where Capcom made a game that couldn't be played unless you were attached to the internet and didn't tell anyone. Clearly no one is getting ripped off in this particular case.

[Crazy Climber]

I also don't understand how GameStop can be supporting this. This is going to hurt their bottom line -- along with any other store that buys and sells used games.

 

As I've read it, GameStop has cut a deal with EA to sell the $10 (or whatever price they will be) online cards, so they are happy. And I would be willing to bet that GS won't lose any money on used games as they will simply lower the trade-in price they offer.

 

The one who is really going to be hurt by this is GameFly.... who will rent games they can't play online??

 

 

Mendon

That is my take on it as well. It is EA trying to "work with" Gamestop so they can BOTH make money on used game sales (let's be honest, Gamestop is not going away so EA will do what they can to make light of a money losing situation) and "get rid of" Gamefly completely, since that is fully possible and EA will not be able to make any money from them. Personally I don't like it but as always, it is a business decision, and consumers generally do not like business decisions. Gamestop will be ALL for this. Yes, they will be able to SELL the online cards to get access and it will also prevent people from buying sports games used, playing for the week and then exchanging it over and over again as many times as they can get away with it (Gamestop's 7 day satisfaction policy) which results in neither EA or Gamestop making a profit.