EA Sports Fucks Over People Who Buy Used Games

[RoyWill Rumble]

Thank you, Plubby, for being an asshole. Well done.

I, in fact, don't buy many used games. In fact, the last used game I bought was Crackdown simply because it was ten bucks, and before that Elder Scrolls, over half a year ago. So, no, this isn't me being all butthurt, this is me realize this sets a dangerous precedent if people simply accept it as undoubtable fact and let it slide so easily. In fact, I don't even play EA Sports games. The only games I play on any sort of regular basis by them is the FIFA series. I hate football with a passion and find Madden boring and the NHL series has become stale to me. However, I also know a lot of people play the shit out of both games and I also know the EASHL and Online Franchise are both game modes a lot of people use. So, I rather sympathize with them if they don't feel like being dicked over some more by game companies whether they're poor or not. I'm not rich, no, but if I can buy a copy of a used game I will considering how overly-expensive games are anyway.

As Zero has stated, this could very well be the start of a very dangerous precedent and I'd rather be against it and take a stand now looking like an overzealous dick than sitting with my thumb in my ass and thinking "Oh well, I only play FIFA, or I only play Dragon Age, so it won't effect me too much--oh, look at that, online play, like an MMO subscription, for every fucking game EA publishes in two years."

Again, hyperbole? Overreaction? Maybe, but I'd rather overreact than be the crazy guy on the streets screaming "I TOLD YOU SO!" in a year or two when this kind of shit is commonplace.

Edit: Let's not forget this will very likely drive down the price of trading in games as well. They're already criminally ridiculous, but essentially dropping another ten bucks? Bullshit. Doesn't seem like much, but then it starts to add up. Rich or poor, a good chunk (a majority at least, I would assume) trade in games they don't play anymore, so this is still most likely going to effect you even if you buy new games exclusively.

[DMN in the House]

I highly doubt that the 'majority' trade in their games. I for one, never have.

The response to this is easy. Instead of opening your mouth with sound and fury that means nothing...DON'T BUY THE FUCKING GAMES! Its that simple, and the only way to really affect change.

As for GameStop, they don't really have a choice but to go along. There are thousands of other retailers, and EA could simply go 'well, too bad you won't be selling Madden this year, then'. That would completely fuck them, at least in the US.

In short, don't blame the game companies, blame consumers. Its a business, and they'll only go as far as their allowed.

For the record, I don't care because I don't trade in games and I don't play online (too many jackasses). It doesn't affect me. However, people need to think about how the economy works, instead of getting on the soapbox and doing nothing.

[EddieRuckus]

It will definitely trade-in values for the EA sports titles, as I'm pretty sure Gamestop usually bases their trade-in value on need or want of used games. At least that's how it used to be, not sure if they changed that earlier.

EA has a tendency to do this sorta bullshit though. It started last year with the online franchise, and even the "pay for cheats" thing they had for NCAA 10 and Madden 10. I wouldn't be surprised if, like Zero said, they charged 50 for a universal online play code or 10 dollars for each individual title. Sadly none of us have too much control over it besides protesting and not buying the game. We'll have to see how it goes, whether people will pay the 10 dollars blindly or it comes back to bite EA in the ass via lawsuits/loss of finances/etc.

Also wanted to point out that although I said I can see where they're going with this, it's still a dick move.

[King Ellis]

I vote that EA takes a dollar for everytime someone in this thread has said 'dick move'. Maybe that will appease them.

[EddieRuckus]

I bet by this time next year they will

[oldskool]

But they didn't from the beginning, so it'd be a dick move to start n...oh fuck another dollar for them.

[zero]

I highly doubt that the 'majority' trade in their games. I for one, never have.

Used game sales make up 49% of Gamestop's business, and in 2009, 33% of all game sales were used games.

Instead of opening your mouth with sound and fury that means nothing...DON'T BUY THE FUCKING GAMES! Its that simple, and the only way to really affect change.

Really? I'm sorry, I must have missed that rule where we're not allowed to discuss things like this on EWB. Kinda the whole point of what we do here.

[livid]

Yeah but there's a difference between discussing and being overly dramatic about it like Will was.

[zero]

Let's worry more about the topic rather than the person who started it. Turning this into Will-bashing or a pissing match distracts more from the thread than any overreaction he's been guilty of.

[Rich]

GAMING AS WE KNOW IT IS OVER!!!!

[METALMAN]

GAMING AS WE KNOW IT IS OVER!!!!

I blame the tories.

[livid]

Oh, definitely.

And I totally get what DMN's point has been though. From a company standpoint, I can understand why they're doing it but it's not necessarily that great to the consumer, which is what this board is made up of so of course there's going to be a negative reaction to it.

Oh and I think you can largely blame the success of WoW or any other game like that since I would assume that's how they got the idea.

[Rich]

Lets place the blame at Norman Lamont's feet and be done with it.

[DMN in the House]

Like I said, I dislike the idea as much as the next guy. Its bad on consumers, and that's usually bad business.

However, its not 'wrong', nor a 'dick move' by EA to do it. Its business, and business isn't always nice. The same people that buy Madden year in and year out, allowing EA to continue to provide a less than superior product (although, EA set that up themselves, by killing off their competition), will allow this to take place. The only thing that will stop it will be people not buying the product.

zero, I never said that it wasn't a major part of the game business. I buy a lot of games used. The only games I buy new are major releases I'm really into (for instance, I bought FFXIII on release day, and I will do so for NCAA 11 (ironic) and New Vegas), but for the most part my purchases are used. I just doubt that a 'majority' of people turn in their games, and those numbers would bear that out, no matter how slight.

I just think some people are making a bigger deal of this than it is. EA is in the right for wanting to profit off of customers who use their services without ever paying into their coffers, which is what happens when people buy used games then go on EA's servers. Its really not that egregious.

[oldskool]

EA didn't kill the 2K series, the NFL decided to sell exclusivity & if EA hadn't bought it Disney would have. 2K was a distant third (if they were even THAT high up in the bidding war), considering their last game went on the market for $20.

[syrupclaws]

GAMING AS WE KNOW IT IS OVER!!!!

*pops out of the hermit hood* "LET HIM SPEAK!"

[zero]

I just think some people are making a bigger deal of this than it is. EA is in the right for wanting to profit off of customers who use their services without ever paying into their coffers, which is what happens when people buy used games then go on EA's servers. Its really not that egregious.

But it's not putting any new strain on the server. If a person buys Madden, then re-sells it, then they transfer their online license over to the new player. If I don't have Madden anymore, then I can't take up space on the server, the person who bought the game used took my place. Unless of course, EA's arguing that every used game sale is a lost sale, which is the same bullshit the RIAA and MPAA have been trying to pull when someone downloads a torrent. There's no guarantee that the person who bought used would've bought the game new.

Again, I'm all in favor of exclusive "bonus content" for people who buy new, it's a nice incentive and it doesn't take things away from the consumer. EA's punishing people who are bargain shoppers, which they're well within their right to be. There's no law against used game sales, it's not even something that's frowned upon. I rarely (if ever) hear developers come out and say "if only it weren't for those damn kids and their newfangled used games, we would've had a hit!" It's not like this is a new concept, I've been trading in and buying used games since the NES, so why is it suddenly an issue? Because now they have the means to disable your content since our machines are constantly connected, and it's why the concept of all game sales going digital is terrifying to me.

[apsham]

I agree with Zero's point - when I buy used games, it is because I would never pay full price for them. When they first come out and used games are two to five dollars less than buying new - then the consumer would be a bit of a fool to not go for a fresh copy. But when it's been half a year and the game has dropped 20-30 dollars I would call it a bit of a dick move to negate that by making the player pay out an additional ten dollars. It frankly puts me off buying some of the series that I wait half a year to play, simply because it takes away the reason that I do it in the first place.

[DMN in the House]

I'm not saying you guys are wrong. In all honesty, I agree with you. It sucks, and its bad customer service, no doubt about it.

However, I'm a firm believer in getting all that the market will allow. If people are willing to pay this charge, then the corporations should charge it. If people aren't willing to put up with it, it'll go by the way-side pretty damn soon.

There's been a lot of hyperbole in this thread though, and I think I've read the phrase 'dick move' enough times to last me a lifetime. Neither side is wrong, and neither side is right. I understand the frustration, and I won't be taking part in the service. I know that really doesn't mean anything because I wouldn't anyway, but I won't pay in the unlikely case that I would need to (if that makes any sense). I'll still by NCAA 11 on release day, but that's all the support I'll likely give EA.

Best option is to let EA know your displeasure by not buying, not blowing it out of proportion on a website they'll never see. I understand frustration, but c'mon, those who say 'they aren't wrong' aren't capitalist pig dogs...well, maybe Sean...

>_>

[DMN in the House]

I'm not saying you guys are wrong. In all honesty, I agree with you. It sucks, and its bad customer service, no doubt about it.

However, I'm a firm believer in getting all that the market will allow. If people are willing to pay this charge, then the corporations should charge it. If people aren't willing to put up with it, it'll go by the way-side pretty damn soon.

There's been a lot of hyperbole in this thread though, and I think I've read the phrase 'dick move' enough times to last me a lifetime. Neither side is wrong, and neither side is right. I understand the frustration, and I won't be taking part in the service. I know that really doesn't mean anything because I wouldn't anyway, but I won't pay in the unlikely case that I would need to (if that makes any sense). I'll still by NCAA 11 on release day, but that's all the support I'll likely give EA.

Best option is to let EA know your displeasure by not buying, not blowing it out of proportion on a website they'll never see. I understand frustration, but c'mon, those who say 'they aren't wrong' aren't capitalist pig dogs...well, maybe Sean...

>_>