EA games decides they're not hated enough

[General Zod]

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010 ... online.ars

EA does not like when you buy used games, and it keeps coming up with ways to incent gamers to avoid the used game section at their local retailer. With Mass Effect 2, you were given access to new content at launch with a one-time use code included in the box. With Bad Company 2 it was a day-one map pack.

If you bought the game new, you got the goods. If you bought it used, you had to pay $10. With its sports games, however, EA is playing hardball: it will cost you an extra $10 if you want to play online with a secondhand game.
Online pass

Starting in June with Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11, sports games will come with a one-time use code that will allow gamers to play online on the Xbox 360 or PS3 systems. If you rent the game, you can play online for seven days for free, but that only works one time per game. If you buy the game used and want to activate the online features, you'll have to buy the Online Pass directly from EA, for $10.

EA has a page dedicated to explaining the system if you'd like more details, but it's pretty cut-and-dried. "When you connect online with your new EA SPORTS game for the first time, you'll be prompted to confirm your EA account details. If you don’t already have an EA account, you'll be asked to accept our Online Terms and Conditions and then create an account. After confirming or creating your account, a screen will appear that enables you to redeem your Online Pass code," the company explains. The code is found on a card inside your case, and if you don't have that, you can buy a new code from within the game. Simple!

You'll also be given access to "bonus" content, but it sounds suspiciously like items that were simply left out of the game in order to provide a false sense of value. Here is the official example: "...in Tiger Woods PGA TOUR 11, an advanced driver used on the PGA TOUR for play in-game will be included with the Online Pass. Our goal is to provide value to consumers, and this is one piece of that philosophy."
People want to play online, and they need to pay for it

EA is oddly blunt when describing why this system has been put into place. "When we see how many people are playing all of our games online, consumers are telling us that competition is endemic to sports in a way that most people don’t get just by playing a game alone on their couch," Andrew Wilson, Senior Vice President of World Wide Development at EA Sports wrote on the FAQ. "As a result, we’ve made a significant investment to offer the most immersive online experience available. We want to reserve EA SPORTS online services for people who pay EA to access them." If you're not buying the game new, you're not paying EA, so you need to cough up some cash to play online.

GameStop is on board, and will be selling cards with access codes alongside the titles. It makes sense for everyone: EA gets its pound of flesh, and GameStop can continue to hawk used games.

Everyone is looking for new ways to monetize their gaming content, and this move will surely be watched by other publishers hoping to find ways to siphon a few dollars more from gamers' pockets. Will gamers balk, or shrug their shoulders and pay? We'll be watching and listening just as intently as EA to see what kind of impact this has on the sale of sports games. For now, though, be aware of exactly what you're getting into when you buy a used EA Sports title, especially if you like playing online.

I'm not really into sports games, but this is a bad move all around. EA's basically telling people that if they rent, borrow a copy or otherwise do anything but buy new, they're getting a crippled game without paying for the same functionality as everyone else. If you own a 360, this is on top of the Gold membership already required to play online, which is frankly bullshit.

[Admiral Valdemar]

People still pay EA money for entertainment that isn't masochism? Who knew?

[General Zod]

People still pay EA money for entertainment that isn't masochism? Who knew?

I'm more concerned that other companies might think it's a good idea and start adopting the practice themselves.

[Acidburns]

Hey, compared to many publishers EA are the good guys now. Game keys linked to online accounts is pretty standard fair on the PC. I'm kinda surprised it's not been brought over to the consoles already. Having to log into another account is a pain.

[Admiral Valdemar]

This is probably why I've not bought more than two PC games in the last two years, and they're both games from 2007. The only problems I have with console based DRM is the retarded locked saves issue on some games, but otherwise there's just no real hassle. Though killing off the used game market is fucking abominable.

[Mr Bean]

This makes sense because frankly Gamestop is carving into video game makers profits. If they can sell the same console game half a dozen times, they can make several times as much money as the maker of that game. If I go out and buy EA Generic Sports 2011 new, Gamestop gets a cut of that profit. If I buy it used Gamestop gets all the profit.

And lets face it, with console games, they can sell the same game three or four times used and make money (If smaller and smaller amounts) each time, eventually selling it at cost to free up retail space.

Right now in a good scenario Gamestop can make 60$ revenue off a game. They get a 5$ cut when they sell it new (Depends on the game, but minimum 5$ maybe as high as 9$ if the publish selled out for main attraction locations in the store), now if they give 25$ trade in credit on your 60$ game and then turn around and sell it used they can make another 25$ if they sell it for 50$. Trade it in again six months later for 10$ credit they sell it used for 30$ another 20$, and one last time a year later 5$ credit for 20$ so 5$+20$+20$+15$=60$ off of one game sold new and sold used three times.

That's a sweet, sweet deal from Gamestops perspective considering EA Generic 2011 only made the publisher about 15$ the one time when it was sold new.

[Drone]

What this is going to do is hurt companies like gamestop. A used game is only $5 less, so if it's a $10 key, there's no reason to buy used.

[General Zod]

This makes sense because frankly Gamestop is carving into video game makers profits. If they can sell the same console game half a dozen times, they can make several times as much money as the maker of that game. If I go out and buy EA Generic Sports 2011 new, Gamestop gets a cut of that profit. If I buy it used Gamestop gets all the profit.

And lets face it, with console games, they can sell the same game three or four times used and make money (If smaller and smaller amounts) each time, eventually selling it at cost to free up retail space.

Right now in a perfect scenario Gamestop can make 50$ profit off a game. They get a 5$ cut when they sell it new (Depends on the game, but minimum 5$), now if they give 25$ trade in credit on your 60$ game and then turn around and sell it used they can make another 25$ if they sell it for 50$. Trade it in again six months later for 10$ credit they sell it used for 30$ another 20$, and one last time a year later 5$ credit for 20$ so 5$+20$+20$+15$=60$ off of one game sold new and sold used three times.

That's a sweet, sweet deal from Gamespots perspective considering EA Generic 2011 only made the publisher about 15$ the one time when it was sold new.

It's a rather blatant first sales violation though. A game should have the same functionality no matter how many times it's resold, especially when you're already paying to get online access if you own a 360.

[Alphawolf55]

This makes sense because frankly Gamestop is carving into video game makers profits. If they can sell the same console game half a dozen times, they can make several times as much money as the maker of that game. If I go out and buy EA Generic Sports 2011 new, Gamestop gets a cut of that profit. If I buy it used Gamestop gets all the profit.

And lets face it, with console games, they can sell the same game three or four times used and make money (If smaller and smaller amounts) each time, eventually selling it at cost to free up retail space.

Right now in a good scenario Gamestop can make 60$ revenue off a game. They get a 5$ cut when they sell it new (Depends on the game, but minimum 5$ maybe as high as 9$ if the publish selled out for main attraction locations in the store), now if they give 25$ trade in credit on your 60$ game and then turn around and sell it used they can make another 25$ if they sell it for 50$. Trade it in again six months later for 10$ credit they sell it used for 30$ another 20$, and one last time a year later 5$ credit for 20$ so 5$+20$+20$+15$=60$ off of one game sold new and sold used three times.

That's a sweet, sweet deal from Gamestops perspective considering EA Generic 2011 only made the publisher about 15$ the one time when it was sold new.

Pretty much, used game sales really do hurt the industry and it's a big reason why game companies are moving towards digital distribution.

[Mr Bean]

It's a rather blatant first sales violation though. A game should have the same functionality no matter how many times it's resold, especially when you're already paying to get online access if you own a 360.

Say would you like to buy some of my used Steam based PC games?

Oh wait you can't?
Not all industries support used sales, not even within the same industry are used sales permit. Even if they blatant violate first sales rules, guess what? Those are not laws, no one is going to come after them if used games can't play on line period. There are all sorts of distribution methods in media where you are not allowed to resell content. If EA moves over onto this model expect others to follow, and we look back on this and laugh because the PS4 & Xbox 720 was digital distribution only for it's games in 2014

[General Zod]

It's a rather blatant first sales violation though. A game should have the same functionality no matter how many times it's resold, especially when you're already paying to get online access if you own a 360.

Say would you like to buy some of my used Steam based PC games?

Oh wait you can't?
Not all industries support used sales, not even within the same industry are used sales permit. Even if they blatant violate first sales rules, guess what? Those are not laws, no one is going to come after them if used games can't play on line period. There are all sorts of distribution methods in media where you are not allowed to resell content. If EA moves over onto this model expect others to follow, and we look back on this and laugh because the PS4 & Xbox 720 was digital distribution only for it's games in 2014

Turns out there's differences between reselling PC games, console games and digital distribution? I'd be surprised if they don't get sued over this simply for trying to go over Microsoft's head and wring out more from playing on Live.

[Alphawolf55]

What would you sue them for? I can't think a blatant law they're breaking.

[Mr Bean]

Turns out there's differences between reselling PC games, console games and digital distribution? I'd be surprised if they don't get sued over this simply for trying to go over Microsoft's head and wring out more from playing on Live.

NO SHIT!
You missed the point Zod (Would not be the first time...)
Just because there is used console sales much like there used to be used PC game sales means that things can change. Project ten dollar is a clear indication that EA aims to kill or at least neuter the used game market. And if they do it, Activision is not going to be that far behind. And you know Ubisoft will not be far behind. And its going to happen. You can get irate, but we are on a path to the digital only method. This is simply the first step, and what are they going to be sued for? It's not illegal to sell games without multiplayer. Making the multiplayer free DLC is fine even within the letters of Microsoft terms of service.

Hell I don't know if you noticed this, but Microsoft is not getting a cut of that used game market either and is again another major player who could easily follow suit.
*Edit

That is what they are doing, and the reason why any lawsuit would be frivolous, making the entire multiplayer mode DLC is not illegal.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Would the whole first sale concept even apply? Last time I actually bothered to read a EULA for software, I'm fairly certain they made it (or at least tried to) rather clear that you do not own the product, you merely have purchased a license to use thier product. Seeing as there is no fundamental difference between general PC software, and software for proprietary hardware (game consoles), I am actually kind of surprised the used game market has lasted this long. There certainly is no real technical difference between the two. I may not agree with the practice, or like it, but that is rather irrelevant.

I should note, I'm in the US, so this is based on American laws. It may be the case that property ownership laws need a major revision to account for software, rather than the seeming trying to extend existing concepts onto it. Software really is a rather different beast from physical goods, and even the printed word. Some countries' societies and legal frameworks are probably more in synch with the advances and changes that technology has brought. I have a very strong feeling that the U.S. is not one of them.

[Stark]

This is probably why I've not bought more than two PC games in the last two years, and they're both games from 2007. The only problems I have with console based DRM is the retarded locked saves issue on some games, but otherwise there's just no real hassle. Though killing off the used game market is fucking abominable.

Poor old PC gaming.

Frankly however this isn't really an issue. If you theoretically buy a game for 25-50% of original price, $10 for xyz stupid crap isn't that important. If I ever played ME2 I wouldn't give a fuck about the Cerberus network. Multi itself is pretty terrible, though; but what is the market for secondhand games playing online Madden?

[thejester]

That was what I was thinking. You have to wonder how big the market is - EA is basically targeting gamers who will be into said sports game enough to play it heavily online but aren't into it enough that they'll fork full price for a game that will (in all likelihood) have only had gameplay tweaks and roster upgrades to the previous one.

[Alphawolf55]

This is probably why I've not bought more than two PC games in the last two years, and they're both games from 2007. The only problems I have with console based DRM is the retarded locked saves issue on some games, but otherwise there's just no real hassle. Though killing off the used game market is fucking abominable.

Why? The game industry loses a shitload of money through the used game markets and if the model of digital distribution is used, we'll probably pay less for games new, then we will used.

[Soontir C'boath]

What this is going to do is hurt companies like gamestop. A used game is only $5 less, so if it's a $10 key, there's no reason to buy used.

You missed the part where:

GameStop is on board, and will be selling cards with access codes alongside the titles. It makes sense for everyone: EA gets its pound of flesh, and GameStop can continue to hawk used games.

Why? The game industry loses a shitload of money through the used game markets and if the model of digital distribution is used, we'll probably pay less for games new, then we will used.

I would love to see this happen.

[Stark]

If only video game prices weren't basically arbitrary? I mean they've changed so much due to market forces.

Oh wait they've changed like twice in history.

[Alphawolf55]

If only video game prices weren't basically arbitrary? I mean they've changed so much due to market forces.

Oh wait they've changed like twice in history.

At one point Sony was offering a game I think it was called Darkhax or something. It was 60 bucks in store, but you could download it off the PSN for 40 dollars.

[Redleader34]

This makes sense because frankly Gamestop is carving into video game makers profits. If they can sell the same console game half a dozen times, they can make several times as much money as the maker of that game. If I go out and buy EA Generic Sports 2011 new, Gamestop gets a cut of that profit. If I buy it used Gamestop gets all the profit.

And lets face it, with console games, they can sell the same game three or four times used and make money (If smaller and smaller amounts) each time, eventually selling it at cost to free up retail space.

Right now in a perfect scenario Gamestop can make 50$ profit off a game. They get a 5$ cut when they sell it new (Depends on the game, but minimum 5$), now if they give 25$ trade in credit on your 60$ game and then turn around and sell it used they can make another 25$ if they sell it for 50$. Trade it in again six months later for 10$ credit they sell it used for 30$ another 20$, and one last time a year later 5$ credit for 20$ so 5$+20$+20$+15$=60$ off of one game sold new and sold used three times.

That's a sweet, sweet deal from Gamespots perspective considering EA Generic 2011 only made the publisher about 15$ the one time when it was sold new.

It's a rather blatant first sales violation though. A game should have the same functionality no matter how many times it's resold, especially when you're already paying to get online access if you own a 360.

Why is it a violation. In fact, if the difference in game price is greater than 10 dollars (50 vs sixty), you come out ahead! To be honest, its an incentive, buy game on day 1 and get bonus content! Its like complaining "New car companies offer huge deals for buying a new car", when the used salesman down the block is offering discounts for trade in. Both sell the same thing (Cars, or games), but they go about it different ways.

[Stark]

At one point Sony was offering a game I think it was called Darkhax or something. It was 60 bucks in store, but you could download it off the PSN for 40 dollars.

Is this really your response to twenty years of nigh-fixed videogame prices? What evidence is there that game prices will go down in response to market forces, when all they've done in 10 years is go up once they started saying 'next gen'?

Remember, publishers nail digital distribution for selling at exchange rates rather than local, arbitrary price points. These ARE the people who charge $20 for a download of Condemned; an old as shit launch title you can buy secondhand for $5.

[Drone]

What this is going to do is hurt companies like gamestop. A used game is only $5 less, so if it's a $10 key, there's no reason to buy used.

You missed the part where:

GameStop is on board, and will be selling cards with access codes alongside the titles. It makes sense for everyone: EA gets its pound of flesh, and GameStop can continue to hawk used games.

I didn't miss it, the code costs $10. Used games currently cost $5 less than new ones, no matter how old the game is. So if you buy the code, you're paying $5 extra for a used game over a new one. Gamestop can be on board all it wants, but this hurts them unless they drop their prices on used games, which cuts into their profits, unless they buy games back for less, causing people to sell fewer games to them, which hurts them too. Either way his is going to damage that market.

[Stark]

Huh? Used game prices drop like a stone after launch; EB even puts up little charts. If you wait for the constant used game sales you can easily save 50% on a game, especially if it was widely sold but shit (like ODST) or is a pack-in game everyone trades (like Pure or Batman).

[Drone]

Huh? Used game prices drop like a stone after launch; EB even puts up little charts. If you wait for the constant used game sales you can easily save 50% on a game, especially if it was widely sold but shit (like ODST) or is a pack-in game everyone trades (like Pure or Batman).

They aren't exactly $5 less than the new ones anymore? It was like that for years. I don't buy many games anymore period, so I'll admit that I'm working off memory, but it used to be that if a new game was $54.99 then the used was 49, and stayed there til the price of the new one went down. If that's changed than I apologize, and could see why it might not hurt as much as I'd thought.