EA adding codes for console sports games for online play - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

LockedOut · 05-10-2010, 06:13 PM

Starting with Tiger Woods 11, Electronic Arts is including a code that you need to enter to play online with the Xbox or PS3. Nothing new for computer users as most games already do this for piracy reasons. The reason for consoles is to reduce the number of used games sales. It's only a matter of time though till they do this to the single player portion of the game making it impossible to resell games.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6261856...pstory%3Btitle

FanIn80 · 05-10-2010, 06:56 PM

This is getting pathetic. How about going after used game dealers to get their cut, instead of punishing the people who want to get something out of the games that they no longer play?

It makes no sense, especially for a company like EA. They put a yearly sports game out that they expect people to buy every single year... yet they also want to make it more difficult for these people to sell their previous year's games?

It sounds like they run their business the same way they ramp up their in-game AI: by punishing the player.

Joborule · 05-10-2010, 08:32 PM

To be fair if it's by codes and you buy a used copy, you would just pay for a new code that will grant you the online access. You could still buy used games, but EA wants to get some profit at least from you purchasing it.

Flash Walken · 05-10-2010, 08:37 PM

so....how do I rent games?

Gravitykillr · 05-10-2010, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

so....how do I rent games?

it states in the article that they will do a 7 day trial period for rentals so you can play online, for playing offline you don't need any codes

FlamesKickAss · 05-10-2010, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joborule

To be fair if it's by codes and you buy a used copy, you would just pay for a new code that will grant you the online access. You could still buy used games, but EA wants to get some profit at least from you purchasing it.

Should bring down the cost of used games but probably won't.

Esoteric · 05-10-2010, 11:03 PM

Great plan, I see nothing wrong with it. You want to buy used, you pay $10 to actually support the company that made the game.

Jimmy Stang · 05-10-2010, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esoteric

Great plan, I see nothing wrong with it. You want to buy used, you pay $10 to actually support the company that made the game.

If I buy pretty much anything else used, the original manufacturer doesn't get a dime. They sold a product and made their profit. Done.

If GM sells one car, why should they get paid twice? Or even 1.1 times?

FanIn80 · 05-10-2010, 11:15 PM

People aren't going to buy a used copy of Modern Warfare 2 for $50, only to pay $10 more for an access code. They're just going to buy it brand new for $60 and be done with it. Which means that you won't be getting $40 in trade-in value for it anymore. You'll be getting $20 and they'll be selling it for $40. The margin will be higher to make up for the lower selling price.

Of course, this means that (with new games still costing $60-$70) people aren't going to trade in decent games anymore, since no one will trade something like MW2 for only $20 while it's still a relevant game that people are interested in playing.

Companies should be going after the retailers and getting their roaylties from places like EB Games, not the people who are playing the game. What's next? Is Ford going to send me an invoice in the mail for 10% of what I paid for the last used car I bought?

KTrain · 05-10-2010, 11:35 PM

At what point do they cut off support for the online versions of their old games? Who should pay for the servers hosting the games if not the people who are looking to play on them?

3 Justin 3 · 05-10-2010, 11:41 PM

As I like how this gets rid of EB games ripping me off on used games, I think it is a pathetic and stupid idea to implement.

FanIn80 · 05-11-2010, 12:20 AM

Although, after thinking about this more... I suppose it is fair that the developers get paid for every account that plays their games, since they aren't currently getting paid for every person that buys (or rents?) their games.

Having said that, though, who does actually run the servers? On the PS3, I think it's up to the individual game companies, but doesn't MS host the Xbox servers? Isn't that why we all pay $50 a year for Live memberships?

Still, though, I can see the point that EA wants to get paid for the people who play the game without actually buying a new copy of it. Also, at the end of the day, the real crooks are places like EB Games who quite often will sell a used copy of a game for as little as $5 less than a new copy. In fact, I suspect that some of their "new" copies are really just very well preserved used copies.

I bought a "new" copy of Saints Row 2 a couple weeks ago, and the guy grabbed the disk out of a drawer and stuck it in the case I pulled off the shelf and then sold it to me (opened) for the new-game price. I said, "Is this a used copy?" He said, "No, we just keep the disk in the drawer so it doesn't get stolen." I said, "Uhh... I thought you guys just keep a demo box on the shelf, and then get the sealed game from the display case behind you, or from your inventory in the back." He said, "Not this game, we don't."

It's pretty common for me to leave an EB Games store feeling like I've been screwed over...

ComixZone · 05-11-2010, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Although, after thinking about this more... I suppose it is fair that the developers get paid for every account that plays their games, since they aren't currently getting paid for every person that buys (or rents?) their games.

Having said that, though, who does actually run the servers? On the PS3, I think it's up to the individual game companies, but doesn't MS host the Xbox servers? Isn't that why we all pay $50 a year for Live memberships?

Still, though, I can see the point that EA wants to get paid for the people who play the game without actually buying a new copy of it. Also, at the end of the day, the real crooks are places like EB Games who quite often will sell a used copy of a game for as little as $5 less than a new copy. In fact, I suspect that some of their "new" copies are really just very well preserved used copies.

I bought a "new" copy of Saints Row 2 a couple weeks ago, and the guy grabbed the disk out of a drawer and stuck it in the case I pulled off the shelf and then sold it to me (opened) for the new-game price. I said, "Is this a used copy?" He said, "No, we just keep the disk in the drawer so it doesn't get stolen." I said, "Uhh... I thought you guys just keep a demo box on the shelf, and then get the sealed game from the display case behind you, or from your inventory in the back." He said, "Not this game, we don't."

It's pretty common for me to leave an EB Games store feeling like I've been screwed over...

You're not alone in this. Fact is, in the near future, we'll see implementations of systems like Steam into consoles (it's already SOMEWHAT started with the PSN and Xbox Live, but the benefits haven't become apparent yet).

Games for Windows Live (PC) and Steam (PC) have weekly, mid-week, weekend sales. Money directly to the publishers/developers, with Steam taking a small %, and end-users reaping the benefits of 'direct to consumer' discounts.

Right now, you occasionally see discounted titles on the PSN - and you weekly see bullcrap sales on Xbox Live - as time progresses, the gap between the sales on Steam/Games for Windows Live and the sales on Xbox Live/PSN will become closer and closer. Developers/Publishers are seeing the benefit of discounting their titles directly to users - and I love it on my PC. I bought Red Faction Gurrilla for like, 10 bucks on Games for Windows Live, Batman: AA for 12 bucks. I couldn't even begin to count the number of deals I've gotten through Steam's sales.

These deals will eventually start coming to the consoles (although probably not this generation), and EB/Gamestop will have to react accordingly by reducing their margins.

SebC · 05-11-2010, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FanIn80

People aren't going to buy a used copy of Modern Warfare 2 for $50, only to pay $10 more for an access code. They're just going to buy it brand new for $60 and be done with it. Which means that you won't be getting $40 in trade-in value for it anymore. You'll be getting $20 and they'll be selling it for $40. The margin will be higher to make up for the lower selling price.

Why does EB's margin have to go from $10 to $20? Theoretically this should also reduce the price of new games, as buyers will lose resale value. And since I tend not re-sell my games, I'd consider that a win.

Esoteric · 05-11-2010, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

If I buy pretty much anything else used, the original manufacturer doesn't get a dime. They sold a product and made their profit. Done.

If GM sells one car, why should they get paid twice? Or even 1.1 times?

I feel differently about games. Sure, GM doesn't get paid on secondary sales, but they don't have to worry about piracy taking away from their business. The gaming industry however, gets screwed out of profit from piracy, as well as on second hand game sales.

QuadCityImages · 05-11-2010, 05:32 AM

To me this really hurts their argument that games are no different than any commodity that you buy. The movie industry is on the same quest to convince people that intellectual property is still the same as real property. It makes sense, but when you start blocking people from transferring that property to someone else, its back to being different again.

GreenTeaFrapp · 05-11-2010, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esoteric

I feel differently about games. Sure, GM doesn't get paid on secondary sales, but they don't have to worry about piracy taking away from their business. The gaming industry however, gets screwed out of profit from piracy, as well as on second hand game sales.

Who is playing pirated games online for the PS3 or Xbox? I thought that you could only play pirated games offline. So if that's the case, this doesn't change that.

And you don't think there's a second hand market for cars?

SebC · 05-11-2010, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

To me this really hurts their argument that games are no different than any commodity that you buy. The movie industry is on the same quest to convince people that intellectual property is still the same as real property. It makes sense, but when you start blocking people from transferring that property to someone else, its back to being different again.

It isn't the same in the first place. When you steal physical property, someone else is losing it. When you pirate intellectual property, the person you get it from retains their copy. Intellectual property has development costs, but zero or near zero marginal/per unit cost.

It really bugs me that the music/movie industries (worse than the game industry IMO) goes after users for downloading stuff they would never buy in the first place (because it's not on radio, you'd never even have heard it). It's not costing them anything, and the artists are getting free advertising for when they go on tour. And you can't pirate being at a live show.

Because the unit cost is near zero, it's entirely possible that an alternative business model would be much more profitable, but we'll never know how much sales would go up if they went to $0.01/song + bandwidth cost because nobody's ever tried it - total revenue could go down, but it could go up, and it would be much better for consumers and artists would get more exposure. Instead they sue their consumers and try to maintain their old business practices which are anti-competitive (for an artist to sell CDs they need airplay, and to get airplay they need the big studios' marketing machine).

SoulOfTheFlame · 05-11-2010, 07:13 AM

What most people seem to be missing is that your old PS1 or SuperNES games didn't have online functionality. It costs extra money to deliver online modes, and costs even more money after launch to support these online modes with patches, servers, community management, etc.

It adds up! Developers are fine with providing people that service, but when the game is sold 3, 4, 5 times does it still really seem fair?

GreenTeaFrapp · 05-11-2010, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoulOfTheFlame

What most people seem to be missing is that your old PS1 or SuperNES games didn't have online functionality. It costs extra money to deliver online modes, and costs even more money after launch to support these online modes with patches, servers, community management, etc.

It adds up! Developers are fine with providing people that service, but when the game is sold 3, 4, 5 times does it still really seem fair?

Yes, because there is still only one disc in use at a time. What does it matter if it is on the first owner or the hundredth owner?