EA Sports Fucks Over People Who Buy Used Games

[oldskool]

Oddly enough, EA's the one that held Microsoft & Xbox Live hostage for the right to run their own servers & shit, and now they're having trouble paying upkeep on them.

Edited May 11, 2010 by oldskool

[EddieRuckus]

Eh, the league here will still be going. Our league from...September/Octoberish is still going.

As for this, I'm a little irked by it, but nothing too major. If it's a good enough game to buy new, I'll buy it. If it's a shitty game or a good game that isn't worth 60, I'll wait for it to come down in price or trade in games towards it.

You don't exactly get the point, do you?

No, I get the point perfectly fine. I'm just saying it doesn't affect me too much for the reasons I said above. Yes it's irking, but as SDM alluded to, there are going to be too many people who still buy the games blindly and WILL pay the 10 dollars for online play for it to work.

[Plubby]

So, will is unhappy because he buys his games preowned, and is no longer specifically catered for.

For someone like myself, part of the vast majority who likes to buy their games brand new...Does this mean anything to me?

[DMN in the House]

No, not really.

[Plubby]

Great.

So, why SHOULD people who buy used games be allowed to contribute NOTHING to the developers and still be catered for by these developers? Just buy the game new, and be done with it.

From EA's point of view, there's a portion of the used market that's akin to piracy. They don't see any benefit from those who buy their games used (the same as they would not from pirates) -so why SHOULD they continue to let them enjoy the game with no return to the company? It's hardly an element of social responsibility that EA owes anyone. There isn't a single good reason I can come up with why they shouldn't do this aside from "Billy consumer wants his games cheapy-cheap". A noble goal, but never one that a company owes their consumers.

[Dan]

But if I bought a DVD used, imagine my horror if I had to pay to watch the special features.

[EddieRuckus]

If a company wanted to go that business route, they would be entitled to. You can choose to not buy DVDs from that company anymore if you don't want.

[DMN in the House]

Nevermind that the comparison falls apart because a DVD company has no upkeep costs on the special features, while a game company very much does for online play.

[SRN]

Who the hell buys pre-owned or used DVD's?

[SeanDMan]

There are lots of examples of bundled features being discontinued over time. DVDs and CDs with online content that eventually got phased out from the companies website, for example.

Also, people whining about not being able to play a used game online have clearly never heard of CD-Keys before.

[DMN in the House]

Who the hell buys pre-owned or used DVD's?

*hi*

You can actually find a lot of cool shit used at, say, SunCoast. Picked up some interesting wrestling DVDs that way.

[Liam]

Yeah, I have done in the past. Ex-rental, normally, but sometimes just pre-owned.

[Baddar]

When FIFA 11 comes out, I guarantee people will find that their code doesn't work, and they'll fuck that up too. It'll be FM all over again.

[Kaney]

Great.

So, why SHOULD people who buy used games be allowed to contribute NOTHING to the developers and still be catered for by these developers? Just buy the game new, and be done with it.

From EA's point of view, there's a portion of the used market that's akin to piracy. They don't see any benefit from those who buy their games used (the same as they would not from pirates) -so why SHOULD they continue to let them enjoy the game with no return to the company? It's hardly an element of social responsibility that EA owes anyone. There isn't a single good reason I can come up with why they shouldn't do this aside from "Billy consumer wants his games cheapy-cheap". A noble goal, but never one that a company owes their consumers.

You're assuming everyone bitching about this is only bitching because they are stingy and refuse to pay full price. A huge amount of people simply can't afford to pay 50+ bucks for a brand new game. I know you're going to say easy answer is tough shit don't buy it, but the entire pre-owned market/rental market exists to cater to people who don't, or most times can't afford to buy new.

It's a privilege, not a right, I know, but theres still something overtly nasty about saying "fuck poor people". And that is what you're saying. "Why should they get to play the full game?" because they bought the full game.

Buyer A purchases a game on release day, pays full price. EA profits $50 or whatever their cut is. Buyer A doesn't like game, sells it to Gamestop, trades it in, whatever. Buyer B buys it cheaper, preowned. EA still have their $50 from the first sale, so why should they fuck over a new player just because he can't afford to pay full price for a game they've already made a sale on?

It's not a major deal for me since I think I've only ever bought like, two EA Sports games ever and tend to buy new anyway, but it still seems unneccessary, justified or not.

[Crybaby Bunting]

This doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Lets all remember that these are EA Sports games that we're talking about.

EA Sports games that become roughly worthless within two years.

Do you honestly think that there'll be a huge on-line fan-base for people still playing FIFA 08 anyway?

[thatblindgeye]

After thinking about this over night, I can see the point people are making in why EA are right/have the right to do this. I agree that it isn't exactly a warm embrace to the used game market of buyers, and I would say that EA should really only make money on the amount of discs they produce themselves, not the amount of people who end up getting possession of the game. Why should EA make 500 bucks off of 5 discs just because 10 people were in possession of those same 5 discs over a period of time, when no new discs were sold that would require EA to go through the labor of creating more discs to sell?

Then on the other hand I can agree with those saying that EA making money off of an online feature they are behind is in the right and such. It is a smart tactic on EA's part to make some extra dough in addition to the game discs themselves, and if EA are running their own servers for the online features, then it is more understandable for them to charge for online play. With an online code being a one time price of 10 dollars (it better not be a monthly thing ), buying a game used can still save some money if you wait long enough. For people who have trouble with money, then putting video games at the bottom of the list is a necessary thing to do.

Last night I was agreeing with those that were saying EA are dicks for doing this, but now I am more understandable to why they may have and think they have the right to do this, especially if they run their own servers which costs money and labor and such to do. I can still understand why people are upset, though, since it does come across as a dickish move if you are highly part of the used game market. If I was into sports games at all, I'd be pissed at having to pay more money to play an extra feature in the game since I'm tight on money as well.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Vitamin E

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

Companies such as Sony and Microsoft provide a console to play video games on.

These consoles come with an optional feature that allows a connection to the internet.

Companies such a EA choose to develop games for these consoles. In doing so they decide whether or not they are going to use the optional features such as internet connection that these consoles provide.

By providing online content and game play they are choosing to take advantage of the ability to do so.

EA isn't being forced to provide online content - they have the option not to include the multiplayer features so there is no reason for them to force gamers to to pay for the usage.

It breaks down that simple.

Right, and consumers are being gouged out their fucking asses for consoles, video games, controllers, LIMITED EDITION COLLECTOR'S BULLSHIT, possible subscription fees, etc. It is optional, but essentially it is generally accepted that most major game releases will include some form of online multiplayer, ESPECIALLY SPORTS GAMES, for Christ's sake. It is essentially forced by the will of the people to include such major features when, again, people are paying their hard-earned money and being gouged out the ass for video games. Video game companies owe their consumers quite a bit, not the other way around. Hell, Online Team Play has been the NHL's selling point for the past two years, essentially, and it was a huge feature of FIFA. And it was INCLUDED WITH THE GAME, USED OR NEW. So, even if game companies can do what they want, they're essentially removing half the damned game and charging the same price to those who buy the game used. Yeah, it's still a giant dick move.

They wouldn't do it if it didn't make them money. If enough people stopped buying their games, it wouldn't make them money, so they wouldn't do it. Evidently most people are perfectly happy shelling out hundreds upon hundreds of dollars per game.

[Plubby]

Buyer A purchases a game on release day, pays full price. EA profits $50 or whatever their cut is. Buyer A doesn't like game, sells it to Gamestop, trades it in, whatever. Buyer B buys it cheaper, preowned. EA still have their $50 from the first sale, so why should they fuck over a new player just because he can't afford to pay full price for a game they've already made a sale on?

But you didn't answer my question. Why should the developer cater for them? They're using the product, and they didn't pay the developer for it. They paid someone for it, but it wasn't the developer...

[syrupclaws]

Eh, the league here will still be going. Our league from...September/Octoberish is still going.

As for this, I'm a little irked by it, but nothing too major. If it's a good enough game to buy new, I'll buy it. If it's a shitty game or a good game that isn't worth 60, I'll wait for it to come down in price or trade in games towards it.

You don't exactly get the point, do you?

I think Everyone here shares your position. They don't like the idea of paying extra. What they (some) Don't share is your extremely dramatic approach to this issue. If making fun of terminally ill people was financial sound, dick move or not; people would do it. morally unjustifiable sure, but there are far biggers cries of unjustice on this earth than paying ten dollars to play the "whole" game. So what if gaming is becoming more like a cell phone plan. Its not the end of the world. You just won't be able to be a cheap ass bout the next title that includes this. I don't play most of the games EA provides, So I may not share your "passion". Make believe is just going to cost more money.

Edited May 11, 2010 by syrupclaws

[Plubby]

Holyfuckamazing can we keep him?