Buying used games? EA will charge you for the online mode!

[Taustin Powers]

EA just announced something very clever called the "EA Sports Online Pass". Basically, it's a code that allows you access to any online features of the game. It comes with a new game and can be registered only once. If you buy a used game from a friend (or ebay etc.), you have to purchase an Online Pass from EA (~10$) to access the online features of this game. Yes, one Pass for each game. Oh, you can also try it for free for seven days...but then you have to pay! :D The Online Pass also gives you access to "bonus game items", such as a modern golf driver in the next PGA game.

So, to sum it up: In the future, when you buy a used EA game, it will be stripped of all online functionality and certain game items until you hand over some extra cash to EA.

I like their sales pitch...it's all just about enhancing the gamers' experience by enabling them to access to premium online services...so, uh, stuff that used to be just part of the game?. :rolleyes:

http://www.vg247.com/2010/05/11/ea-sports-online-pass-required-if-you-want-to-play-future-ea-sports-games-online/

http://www.easports.com/onlinepass

[macuserx86]

Another example of why the only way to truly own your media is to pirate it.

I wish developers would realize that this kind of stuff just alienates customers, not stops pirates. Although, if PC gaming dies piracy is less of a concern.

[Taustin Powers]

I guess people selling their games are hurt the most by this, because it lowers the games' resale value by ten dollars.

They bought a full game, but can only sell "half a game".

[dukebound85]

This is bogus imo

Makes me want to quit gaming altogether

Already leaning that way with having to pay extra to unlock other game modes and get new levels that should have been included in the 60 bucks I paid for the game up front

Irritating as hell as I feel I pay for beta software and and "pressured" to pay more to get the complete game

[takao]

combined with EA's new method of shutting off "last year" game server within 2-3 months after release of the new one

it really is showing the worst of the industry

[Dagless]

EA can **** right off. The only game of theirs I play is Rock Band 2, and if this is in Rock Band 3... No buy.
Another company to boycott.

[sikkinixx]

*shrug* makes sense to me. It costs them money to upkeep their end of things for online play. If you buy new, you play for it then, if you buy it used, why should you ride the bus for free? It has the 7-day trial thing for rentals or if you want to lend it to a friend.

MS charges you for arguably less.

Now, the big question is if EA will keep servers running LONGER for these new games since people are now buying into them. Or if they will offer a subscription (a la XBL) to play all their online games regardless of how you buy them.

[txa1265]

Another example of why the only way to truly own your media is to pirate it..

Huh? That is the STUPIDEST thing I have ever read! If anything, this is done BECAUSE of pirating! If you pirate you still can't play online.

I'm no fan of EA and their constant hand in my pocket, but given the constant increase in asset production cost, transportation and general overhead without an increase in game price ... how would you have them offset the costs? Did anyone bother, y'know, READING this?

If you buy the game you have unlimited use, and can retrieve your code even if your console crashes. Unlimited meaning full online and offline. In fact, everything about this protects the original owner, and only partially restricts second-sale terms.

If you buy the game second hand or trade or (in the case of the PSP) pirate it (i.e. no payment to EA), then you have full and unlimited use of offline modes, and can grab added DLC for offline use. If you decide to make use of EA's servers for online play, you have to pay for the usage.

They also made it clear that this is for the Sports games - and while I have no doubt that EA will continue monetizing everything, their Sports unit has a different operating model:
- They killed the online support after one year because the vast majority of online play happens in the first 6 months after release. So by having overlapping support windows they further increase costs - and detract from the support and service for the much more popular current version.
- Sports games are very similar year-to-year, with added assets, intelligence, and options - all of which are data intensive. This means each year requires more and more bandwidth etc.
- The general profile of sports gamers is intense initial use and then complete abandonment. The initial use comes either right after the game is released, or at some point during the season. By the end of the season, most gamers have moved on.
- *Because* of that trend, the business model demands heavy staffing in each sports unit for a period after release, then a portion can move on to other games after things settle out.
- Second hand gamers put an additional drain on those resources without adding anything.

So look - I'd rather everything were free and easy and we didn't have to ever pay for anything. But these games cost millions to develop, make, and support. And as gamers our side of the bargain is to pay for what we get. This doesn't make me overly happy, but it is less obtrusive than DRM that punishes *everyone* ... because I tend to be a single-player focused person, so this won't impact me at all.

[Taustin Powers]

*shrug* makes sense to me. It costs them money to upkeep their end of things for online play. If you buy new, you play for it then, if you buy it used, why should you ride the bus for free?

I'll have to carefully disagree with this... One copy of a game switching hands does not generate more costs for EA.

See, if they sell one million copies of a game, then those sales include the price to keep servers running that can handle that amount of players. That's how it works so far. You pay for the online component when you buy the game. Now if all these buyers sell their games to friends, this doesn't change the amount of players their servers need to handle. Still one million copies out there, not one more.

So if the first gamer already paid for this copy of the game to play online, why should subsequent owners have to pay for it again and again? EA is double (triple etc.) charging for one thing: the online support for one copy of one game.

And what is the seller going to do with his "Online Pass" after he sells the game? :rolleyes: Separating an integral game part that is unusable by itself is just plain stupid. The only way for this to make sense would be if EA were to pay back the 10$ to the seller, cause he can't use his Pass anymore! :D

[dukebound85]

*shrug* makes sense to me. It costs them money to upkeep their end of things for online play. If you buy new, you play for it then, if you buy it used, why should you ride the bus for free? It has the 7-day trial thing for rentals or if you want to lend it to a friend.

Because to EA, they still sold the same physical game. It is not as if the original owner is still able to access the online features.

[Antares]

The only way for this to make sense would be if EA were to pay back the 10$ to the seller, cause he can't use his Pass anymore! :D

Agreed.

The only reason EA is doing this is because it's a money grab. They make no money off of used games and they want "in" on the action. This is the only possible way to do it. It has nothing to do with recovering the costs of running online servers. EA wants you to pay them when you buy a game...new or used. Period. They are spinning this with clever marketing.

I bet EA would charge a fee for single player/offline content on a used game, if they could. However, the only way they can collect fees is if people have the ability to go online with their system, first. Not everyone has their PS3/360/Wii connected to the internet. Imagine how people would feel if they had to connect to the internet, first, before they could play a game...even if they have no interest in ever playing said game online. EA would love that.

[e²Studios]

Because to EA, they still sold the same physical game. It is not as if the original owner is still able to access the online features.

EA or any publisher for that matter only makes money on new game sales, GameStop or whatever other rip you off retailer is the only party making money on a used sale. This is more of a way for them to try to stick it to them and in turn also get consumers to buy new instead of used. With the extra $10 it may sway a consumer in to buying it new since those shops only charge $5 less than new for the used copy (of course this is the same game they only gave you $10 for on trade-in).

If anyone is ripping you off its GameStop or wherever sells the used games. They are to blame for this more than anything.

[whooleytoo]

I'll have to carefully disagree with this... One copy of a game switching hands does not generate more costs for EA.

Actually, I think it might cost EA more. I'm sure when any developer releases a game with online play, they have to factor how long buyers are likely to keep playing that game, and from that how much it will cost to maintain the servers.

If their games are sold second-hand, it's likely to lengthen the time the game is played; and require the servers to be maintained longer. (People get tired of playing any game, I'm sure any second-hand game buyer is likely to play a lot more than the game seller did!)

Of course, I'm sure that's not the entire reason, and it has more to do with second-hand gaming becoming more popular and EA trying to make money out of it if they can.

[ScottishDuck]

-=Pirate Master Race Reporting=-

Enjoy your consoles with gimped online while I enjoy unlimited free gaming on my PC. ;)

[JackAxe]

Although, if PC gaming dies piracy is less of a concern.

Hardly.

[airwalke]

This sounds like to me that it's less about piracy and more about reselling. EA just wants a cut of the jib when it comes to its used game sales -- and I don't blame them.

The only dark side I can see to this is if you want to bring over Madden to a friends house to play online together, you have to pay the extra $10 to play it there.

[Huntn]

*shrug* makes sense to me. It costs them money to upkeep their end of things for online play. If you buy new, you play for it then, if you buy it used, why should you ride the bus for free?


You are not riding for free, you purchased the game used. EA was paid by the purchaser of the game. I suppose they think this is less offensive than charging a monthly subscription. Game developers seem to be moving towards the Steam Standard, a standard where you don't own the media, you only have access to it. I'm waiting for Microsoft Live to force you to register all games to your account.:mad:

[NoSmokingBandit]

I'll have to carefully disagree with this... One copy of a game switching hands does not generate more costs for EA.

See, if they sell one million copies of a game, then those sales include the price to keep servers running that can handle that amount of players. That's how it works so far. You pay for the online component when you buy the game. Now if all these buyers sell their games to friends, this doesn't change the amount of players their servers need to handle. Still one million copies out there, not one more.

So if the first gamer already paid for this copy of the game to play online, why should subsequent owners have to pay for it again and again? EA is double (triple etc.) charging for one thing: the online support for one copy of one game.

And what is the seller going to do with his "Online Pass" after he sells the game? :rolleyes: Separating an integral game part that is unusable by itself is just plain stupid. The only way for this to make sense would be if EA were to pay back the 10$ to the seller, cause he can't use his Pass anymore! :D

This is precisely how i feel about the issue. The big guys like Ubi and EA are really taking the industry down a scary path.

[LethalWolfe]

If anyone is ripping you off its GameStop or wherever sells the used games. They are to blame for this more than anything.
Blame for what? Should the original home builder be paid every time the house they built changes hands? Should Stephen King get a cut every time a dog-eared copy of "Carrie" is sold at a used bookstore or handed down from one sibling to another? Used cars, used clothes, used furniture, used computers... the world is full of second hand sales and, at least in the US we gave the First Sale Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine).

Actually, I think it might cost EA more. I'm sure when any developer releases a game with online play, they have to factor how long buyers are likely to keep playing that game, and from that how much it will cost to maintain the servers.

If their games are sold second-hand, it's likely to lengthen the time the game is played; and require the servers to be maintained longer. (People get tired of playing any game, I'm sure any second-hand game buyer is likely to play a lot more than the game seller did!)

So, hypothetically, if a game is widely popular and only new copies of the game were sold do you think it's okay for the publisher to charge everyone additional money if they want to keep playing online since the games popularity made it go 'over budget' in terms of server costs?


Lethal

[txa1265]

Blame for what? Should the original home builder be paid every time the house they built changes hands? Should Stephen King get a cut every time a dog-eared copy of "Carrie" is sold at a used bookstore or handed down from one sibling to another? Used cars, used clothes, used furniture, used computers... the world is full of second hand sales and, at least in the US we gave the First Sale Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine).

Your analogy is broken - in this case, Stephen King wouldn't get a cut of the dog-eared copy, as EA *specifically* is not doing anything about offline gameplay. In other words, unless you go online ... NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

It is closer to buying an electronic product where there is a 1 year warranty which explicitly states 'warranty is not transferable'. Why should it matter whether the 1 year of warranty is spread across 1 person or 20? BECAUSE ... the company has figured out the costs associated with warranty are focused on early issues. So they build the cost model around a single user warranty.

I'm no EA apologist, and I *do* agree that they will only go further down this path - but that is different from misrepresenting what is actually happening in this one case.

[Huntn]

Controversial subject. The situation regarding DRM is not going where most gamers would want it to go. While they don't know anything they are the ones buying or not buying the games. ;)

[LethalWolfe]

Your analogy is broken - in this case, Stephen King wouldn't get a cut of the dog-eared copy, as EA *specifically* is not doing anything about offline gameplay. In other words, unless you go online ... NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
My analogy wasn't about EA. It was about e²Studios' apparent opinion that the source of the problem is people buying and selling used games. Also, going online is a big part of many games so saying nothing has changed unless you go online is a little like selling someone a used car and saying everything is fine unless you want to used the backseat or the trunk. ;)


Lethal

[SchneiderMan]

Wait so what happens if you rent a game and want to play online? Like from Gamefly.. I enjoy online play a lot more..

[SevenInchScrew]

Wait so what happens if you rent a game and want to play online? Like from Gamefly.. I enjoy online play a lot more..
Each game will give you a 7 day trial. So, even if you rent the game, you will have that 1 week period to try out all of the features that each games "Online Pass" will offer. After that? Well, that will cost you $10, of course.

[macfan881]

I think I may give Backbreaker a shot this year this is kinda cheesy even though I usually buy sports games new still don't support this idea.

[Taustin Powers]

SHOCKING NEWS: Ubisoft to follow suit!

"Ubisoft may attempt to thwart used game sales by offering additional content to buyers of new copies of its games starting next year.

During the company's financial call this morning, Chief Financial Officer Alain Martinez said Ubisoft is looking closely at Electronic Arts' current business model, where buyers of used games must pay $10 to gain access to certain gameplay features and content that's normally free if purchased new.

"Most of the games we will release next year will have downloadable content available from the start," said Martinez. "We are looking very carefully at what is being done by EA regarding what we call the '10 dollar solution,' and we will probably follow that line at sometime in the future." "

http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/109/1090839p1.html


And so it begins...


EDIT: At least they're not masking it as "improving the gamers' experience by offering them premium online content" or "providing better content through recovering the additional online cost". They're straight up saying "hey, used game sales suck for us, we want money, and this is how we're gonna get it!" :)

[dukebound85]

EA or any publisher for that matter only makes money on new game sales, GameStop or whatever other rip you off retailer is the only party making money on a used sale. This is more of a way for them to try to stick it to them and in turn also get consumers to buy new instead of used. With the extra $10 it may sway a consumer in to buying it new since those shops only charge $5 less than new for the used copy (of course this is the same game they only gave you $10 for on trade-in).

If anyone is ripping you off its GameStop or wherever sells the used games. They are to blame for this more than anything.

This just in....

Toyota now want a fee when I sell my car so the steering wheel can function

Nike wants a fee when I sell clothes at a garage sale. They say the fee will allow the clothes to cover up *ahem* body parts

Sorry, this is a ridiculous argument as once the game is sold....the license is transfered to the owner who is then able to due what he wants as long as it is within the law of copyright

Selling and buying used games does NOT infringe copyright at all and the license has been legally transferred

This is a ****** move by EA and Ubisoft and I will not buy their games. They can go **** themselves as far as I am concerned

[Dagless]

As if Ubisoft needed another reason for people to dislike them. They're already using the worst DRM imaginable.

I don't think this would be so much of a problem if the games were so expensive to start with. Second hand games from Game or Gamestation are usually only £5-10 less than brand new. Once you factor in these extra costs it'd cost the same price a new game. Throw in increasingly important DLC (CoD6 guys are already working on it, that should be in the retail game!) and online subscription fees...

...up until recently people lolled at the idea of £60 N64 games. We're going right back there.

[macfan881]

Que in THQ as well.....http://kotaku.com/5543083/code-required-for-ufc-undisputed-online-play

[Miharu]

I noticed that Modnation Racers (PSP version) already has this similar function. You can download an online gaming key for 9,95€ if you've bought a used game.

[txa1265]

I noticed that Modnation Racers (PSP version) already has this similar function. You can download an online gaming key for 9,95€ if you've bought a used game.

Of course the PSP game SOCOM 3 has an 'online entitlement voucher' that costs $20. Of course if you get it on PSN like I did you never even see that stuff. My assumption is that was due to the atrocious piracy level on the PSP ... but regardless I really don't like the trend.

[Dagless]

Crosses off Modnation Racers

[txa1265]

Crosses off Modnation Racers

I had done that after playing the demo for a bit ... but this confirms it! ;)

[e²Studios]

Sorry, this is a ridiculous argument as once the game is sold....the license is transfered to the owner who is then able to due what he wants as long as it is within the law of copyright

Sorry for your being uninformed but you are selling the license for the single player version of the game. There is a seperate EULA for the online portion of the game that specifically states the license is non transferrable. All companies do this, and everyone agrees to the terms when going online with a game.

While you and a few others may not like it, it may entice others to just buy the new copy instead of the $5 less for a used and getting ripped off by GameStop or whomever. This is what the companies want as they make money off a new retail sale.

The silly car analogies are irrelevant.

[NoSmokingBandit]

I hope enough people refuse to buy these gimped games that EA (and everyone else) realizes that gamers arent idiots and arent going to let the used game market die.
Unfortunately, a lot of gamers are idiots and will gladly spend tons of money on stuff that should be free, like day 1 DLC.

[Dagless]

like day 1 DLC.

Or 3 new maps for £11.
It's funny but those who really need the money, the small time indie devs, they don't charge extra for DLC. The bigger the developer/publisher - the worse it seems to be (EA and Activision). But yea I won't be buying their titles. Not that I bought their stuff before, except for Rock Band 2 and MW2.

[Taustin Powers]

"EA CEO John Riccitiello has defended the company’s Online Pass system by saying it was designed to provide additional value to the customer instead of squelching used game sales."

http://www.vg247.com/2010/06/09/riccitiello-online-pass-is-not-about-hindering-used-game-sales/#more-99515

What a load of bullplop. His whole statement is just saying a whole lot of nothing, but he's using fancy business terms, so he sounds important and right! :rolleyes: