EA Wants $10 to Unlock Online Multiplayer For Used Games

[flatrock]

Picked random game from gamespot used list, Battlefield, that I instantly recognized as a EA title.
http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=73884
Only a $10 difference between new and old. If you have to pay an additional $10 to use it, I'd rather just buy new.

Gamestop is setting the price for used games at what people are willing to pay. If people have to pay $10 more to EA to play the game, that means that Gamestop will likely have to charge $10 less for used games. They will of course give people less for games they wish to sell back, but the margins on used games for retailers like Gamestop are going to shrink some.

This will make for unhappy customers and unhappy games retailers that sell used games.

 

[flatrock]

Don't forget about rental places like Gamefly - basically any EA games with this new system that you rent you won't be able to play online because they're certainly not going to give out a code for every rental.

Unless renters will be happy with the 7 day trial. Gamefly might also be able to work something out to get codes that are valid for a limited time for renters for less than $10. It would increase the cost of renting a game, but still might be viable.

 

[Gorankar]

what next? I sell my TV and have to give samsung $250 for the next guy to turn it on?

Fucking ludicrous.

What these companies don't realize is they're just making some people stop buying games. I used to buy roughly 4 games a month. This year, I've bought supreme commander 2 and battlefield BC2. I used to buy a game "just because" but now i only buy blockbusters... I plan on buying StarCraft 2 and Diablo 3 this year, and thats about it...

No, this is more along the lines of having to pay the publisher of a book an extra $10 to read the last two chapters, because you bought the book used.

Used game sales are protected under the law, same as used book sales. This is just another attept at a end run around the first sale doctrine.
This is the sort of thing class action lawyers drool over. If it comes to pass, it will end in a Class action against Gamestop, EA, and whatever developers are involved. And we all know how those end up. The little guys get fucked, the big guy has to drop a few coins as part of the cost of doing business, and a pack of lawyers get richer.

 

[LANm0nk3y]

Except in all of your examples, you're sharing your media with family and friends. Of course I did too.

In this situation however, it's not sharing, and it's not with family members and friends. It's reselling and reselling again for profit to people you'll never know. It's not even remotely the same thing.

And there's a problem for you to resell what you purchased? When you lease an apartment, you're allowed to lease it to someone else. What a bunch of greedy bastards.

 

[LANm0nk3y]

No, this is more along the lines of having to pay the publisher of a book an extra $10 to read the last two chapters, because you bought the book used.

So we're all buying a bunch of sharewares. Damn!

 

[jcollett]

Picked random game from gamespot used list, Battlefield, that I instantly recognized as a EA title.
http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=73884
Only a $10 difference between new and old. If you have to pay an additional $10 to use it, I'd rather just buy new.

and that is the whole point of this endeavor. Allow the user to make the choice but remove the financial benefit of the used sales.

Someone else posted that this was a "dick move". Really, how is this a "dick move" by a for profit company?

 

[rufio]

Meanwhile, you have the morally questionable people who buy used copies, who might otherwise be pirating the game altogether if it wasn't for the fact they wanted to play online.

This logic is morally reprehensible.

 

[srangara]

Except in all of your examples, you're sharing your media with family and friends. Of course I did too.

In this situation however, it's not sharing, and it's not with family members and friends. It's reselling and reselling again for profit to people you'll never know. It's not even remotely the same thing.

I can't think of any other industry (or trade mechanism) that doesn't allow that, though:

Real estate: The builder only gets paid on the first sale.
Stock market: The company only gets money on the shares it issues and sells directly.
Recycled materials: Coke would actually have to pay again to use recycled aluminum from its own cans.

For the exact principle:

Used game sales are protected under the law, same as used book sales. This is just another attept at a end run around the first sale doctrine.

 

[Killroy]

Real estate: The builder only gets paid on the first sale.

I saw an article within the past month or two where the builder actually wrote it into the terms of sale that whenever any of his homes are sold (for the second, third...time), he would get a percentage of it. He said it was because builders create these artistic neighborhoods and don't see anything from it past the first sale.

 

[OCgamer666]

I saw an article within the past month or two where the builder actually wrote it into the terms of sale that whenever any of his homes are sold (for the second, third...time), he would get a percentage of it. He said it was because builders create these artistic neighborhoods and don't see anything from it past the first sale.

Guess who isn't buying from that guy?

 

[BladeVenom]

I wonder if this is actually going to make them more money, or just make people sick of EA and their monopoly licenses of many sports franchises.

I'm betting it backfires on them.

 

[OCgamer666]

I wonder if this is actually going to make them more money, or just make people sick of EA and their monopoly licenses of many sports franchises.

I'm betting it backfires on them.

I think this has more potential to blow up in the faces of the used game sellers

 

[jstnomega]

& I'm sure Detroit would like a chunk of the used car market

once again, the digital rights proponents show themselves for the insanely greedy asses they are

yeah, Fuck EA & any other publisher riding that horse

 

[anonmoniker]

Why "fuck EA"? Why not "fuck Gamestop and any other game stores that drove developers and publishers to create DRM and find other ways to make a profit"?

Game developers and publishers acknowledged a thousand times already that DRM wasn't meant to curb pirates. Pirates always find a way around it. DRM is the result of stores like Gamestop.

If I make a game and find out that I'm not selling multiple copies to 5 people because those 5 people are reselling them to each other, I'm out 80% of my profit.

Cry more you EA shill. I'm very sorry that we live in a country where we are granted things called "rights." Things like the right to sell something we no longer want to someone else. Why do you hate freedom so much?

 

[Charlie Hustle]

I am happy to see that the game developers are also taking the time to ruin console gaming too

+1rep
we all knew it was coming soon. I guess EA says, "were going to start turning a profit on used games, or just turn multiple profits on any game".

 

[Azhar]

Cry more you EA shill. I'm very sorry that we live in a country where we are granted things called "rights." Things like the right to sell something we no longer want to someone else. Why do you hate freedom so much?

EA shill? Read closer: all developers and publishers. Piss off with your freedom remark. It doesn't apply here. I'm not against Gamestop reselling anything. I'm giving another point of view to everyone who so equivocally hate EA, but not the reason EA's doing this.

EA wants to make a profit, why do you hate freedom so much?

See what I did there?

 

[rpkelly]

EA shill? Read closer: all developers and publishers. Piss off with your freedom remark. It doesn't apply here. I'm not against Gamestop reselling anything. I'm giving another point of view to everyone who so equivocally hate EA, but not the reason EA's doing this.

EA wants to make a profit, why do you hate freedom so much?

See what I did there?

EA does make a profit. They are trying to circumvent the first sale doctrine. Hence the hate for EA.

 

[Dreaz]

I don't get it.

If I buy a USED game, I wasn't going to buy it NEW no matter what. It's pretty similar to the pirate line. To think every used game sale or even the vast majority is a missed sale by the developer is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Azhar]

EA does make a profit. They are trying to circumvent the first sale doctrine. Hence the hate for EA.

Only on a technicality. You're essentially paying to access their service and have an old key that belonged to someone else removed from their server so you can use it yourself. I'm sure they have it chalked up as tech support cost, not software cost.

Playing the devil's advocate sucks. I should leave it to others :-P

 

[anonmoniker]

EA shill? Read closer: all developers and publishers. Piss off with your freedom remark. It doesn't apply here. I'm not against Gamestop reselling anything. I'm giving another point of view to everyone who so equivocally hate EA, but not the reason EA's doing this.

EA wants to make a profit, why do you hate freedom so much?

See what I did there?

EA is free to make a profit as long as it does not infringe on the rights of other people, namely to freely alienate property. The entire underpinnings of our property law system are based on this, which is why there are rules like this to prevent restraints on alienation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale_doctrine

The problem here is that you are an uneducated shill. EA is doing something that probably shouldn't pass legal challenge, but they may well get away with it since their financial incentive to defend it is far greater than any one person's incentive to go after it. Just because they can get away with breaking the law doesn't mean they should be applauded for it.

 

[Marcdaddy]

Yet another reason for people to Mod Xbox 360s and Wiis, Just like the RIAA lets just feed the fires not put them out. So my hope is they do drop used prices $10 then ill buy the games i wont go online with which is a big savings.

 

[Azhar]

EA is free to make a profit as long as it does not infringe on the rights of other people, namely to freely alienate property. The entire underpinnings of our property law system are based on this, which is why there are rules like this to prevent restraints on alienation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale_doctrine

The problem here is that you are an uneducated shill. EA is doing something that probably shouldn't pass legal challenge, but they may well get away with it since their financial incentive to defend it is far greater than any one person's incentive to go after it. Just because they can get away with breaking the law doesn't mean they should be applauded for it.

Good lord, throwing the shill and applauding word around. Can't a guy give another point of view anymore without being called names?

Read one post above yours.

 

[anonmoniker]

Good lord, throwing the shill and applauding word around. Can't a guy give another point of view anymore without being called names?

Read one post above yours.

Well I see you've given up your debate on the substance now that I've educated you.

 

[Azhar]

Well I see you've given up your debate on the substance now that I've educated you.

/facepalm

I'll cut you some slack seeing how new you are here.

 

[Gorankar]

EA shill? Read closer: all developers and publishers. Piss off with your freedom remark. It doesn't apply here. I'm not against Gamestop reselling anything. I'm giving another point of view to everyone who so equivocally hate EA, but not the reason EA's doing this.

EA wants to make a profit, why do you hate freedom so much?

See what I did there?

EA wants to "increase" their profit margins, not just make a profit. Nothing wrong with that, except how they are doing it, by attempting to bypass the first sale doctrine. Used sales are protected so they are trying to go around that in a way most here don't approve of.
As far as EA hatred, they have improved their behaviour quite a bit in the last year or two, but stuff like this sets them back with the enthusaiasts.

 

[Kueller]

If EA has such a problem with the used game market, I have a simple solution: Make games worth playing and keeping for replay value. If every game they released wasn't a one and done throwaway piece of trash, maybe people wouldn't get rid of it for pennies on the dollar to gamestop. You don't get paid that well when you trade in old games...

How about this, Toyota used to advertise that the camry held it's value very well on the used car market, it was a selling point of the car that you could make some of your money back. I wonder what would've happened if they'd thought about it the other way around, that every used car sold of theirs was a lost new car sale. Would anyone be OK having to pay toyota 20% of the original cost of the car to get it registered if they bought used?

 

[anonmoniker]

/facepalm

I'll cut you some slack seeing how new you are here.

Oh how magnanimous, "cutting me slack" after I revealed the intellectual bankruptcy of your position. Your humiliation must be great if your only fallback is touting post count.

 

[jfreund]

Only on a technicality. You're essentially paying to access their service and have an old key that belonged to someone else removed from their server so you can use it yourself. I'm sure they have it chalked up as tech support cost, not software cost.

Using the "license" model here, you buy a license to play the game. Whether single player or multiplayer, the original purchaser is entitled to play the game by virtue of the sale transaction. Original purchaser has the right to transfer that license. After transfer, the original purchaser is no longer using the resources of the developer/publisher, regardless of whether you call it "support cost" or "software cost". For one copy of the game, there is one user. The license to use the game may transfer, but there is still only one user. The developer/publisher got paid for one copy/license. They are not entitled to further compensation.

 

[Azhar]

Oh how magnanimous, "cutting me slack" after I revealed the intellectual bankruptcy of your position. Your humiliation must be great if your only fallback is touting post count.

Take note of the guy under your post. He found one of my other post that had nothing to do with the legality of EA forcing people to pay them for resale of their software, but paying for a service performed online.

You were too dead set on calling me names that you completely missed it.

 

[anonmoniker]

Take note of the guy under your post. He found one of my other post that had nothing to do with the legality of EA forcing people to pay them for resale of their software, but paying for a service performed online.

You were too dead set on calling me names that you completely missed it.

Why are you directing me to other posts where you got pwn3d to try to counter the proposition that I also pwn3d you? You came to this thread thinking you would be cute by trying to play Socrates/devil's advocate, but you never bothered to consider if the position you were promoting was correct. There is a name for people like this: they are called sophists.

 

[Derangel]

EA wants to "increase" their profit margins, not just make a profit. Nothing wrong with that, except how they are doing it, by attempting to bypass the first sale doctrine. Used sales are protected so they are trying to go around that in a way most here don't approve of.
As far as EA hatred, they have improved their behaviour quite a bit in the last year or two, but stuff like this sets them back with the enthusaiasts.

There is one small problem with the whole "hey they're already making a profit" argument. Sure publishers make a profit on games. Well on about 30% of them as 70% of games released to retail fail. As for EA's hate of the use market. Consider Dead Space for a second. It sold around 1.5 million copies on consoles. Over 3 million people played it. More than double the amount EA got money for.

 

[BillR]

Whew, for a second there I was afraid someone would use car analogies instead of television.

You probably missed the memo, but “Profit” has become the new “F” word these days.

Drop down into the forum tech section and you will see people who own $400.00 motherboards, dual $400.00 or more video cards, a few hundred in DDR-3 RAM, another couple hundred in sound cards and on and on.

Spending that money is ok, buying the game software, well damn…how dare those damn greedy companies trying to make a living.

 

[Ender1183]

Oh how magnanimous, "cutting me slack" after I revealed the intellectual bankruptcy of your position. Your humiliation must be great if your only fallback is touting post count.

Dude STFU! I don't agree with Azhar but I appreciate him playing devils advocate. There are several people here that are saying the same thing you are but with out the flame bait.

Any if EA wants to try and squeeze a few more bucks out of people more power to them. I already only buy a few games a year and BC2 was the first EA game I think I paid full price for.. ever. So I guess its back to not buying EA games... looks like ever and supporting developers to appreciate their customers.

 

[Azhar]

You probably missed the memo, but “Profit” has become the new “F” word these days.

Drop down into the forum tech section and you will see people who own $400.00 motherboards, dual $400.00 or more video cards, a few hundred in DDR-3 RAM, another couple hundred in sound cards and on and on.

Spending that money is ok, buying the game software, well damn…how dare those damn greedy companies trying to make a living.

Tell me about it. If you give an opinion or point of view you're a fanboy or shill these days. I could have sworn about a year ago [H] reader vehemently opposed software resale because it was hurting developers. Now it's the developers that are evil - ironically because they made DRM to fend off the previously evil resellers.

You can't win in this world.

I don't hate because it's cool to hate something. I prefer to keep an open mind and see things from all points of view. If that makes me a fanboy or shill, then I'm a fanboy and shill. Better than being a sheep.

 

[BillR]

Tell me about it. If you give an opinion or point of view you're a fanboy or shill these days. I could have sworn about a year ago [H] reader vehemently opposed software resale because it was hurting developers. Now it's the developers that are evil - ironically because they made DRM to fend off the previously evil resellers.

You can't win in this world.

I don't hate because it's cool to hate something. I prefer to keep an open mind and see things from all points of view. If that makes me a fanboy or shill, then I'm a fanboy and shill. Better than being a sheep.

No, not a sheep. But I will say you Cleary don’t get the entitlement mentality, that’s for sure. Your parents didn’t fetch you up proper, yeah, that’s it.

 

[Gorankar]

There is one small problem with the whole "hey they're already making a profit" argument. Sure publishers make a profit on games. Well on about 30% of them as 70% of games released to retail fail. As for EA's hate of the use market. Consider Dead Space for a second. It sold around 1.5 million copies on consoles. Over 3 million people played it. More than double the amount EA got money for.

Even if they were losing money on every title this would stll not be cool. No other publishers get a second byte at the pie. Not book publisher, movie publishers, music publishers. Once the DVD/CD oes out the door that is it.

If they are losing money, they need to leave the market, charge more, cut costs, or find a business model that is profitable.

 

[Ender1183]

Another great articel from Tech Dirt. Read them almost everyday to see what kind of shenanigans are going on.

EA Continues To Piss Off Lots Of Customers By Trying To Block Used Market With Single Use Codes

 

[srangara]

There is one small problem with the whole "hey they're already making a profit" argument. Sure publishers make a profit on games. Well on about 30% of them as 70% of games released to retail fail. As for EA's hate of the use market. Consider Dead Space for a second. It sold around 1.5 million copies on consoles. Over 3 million people played it. More than double the amount EA got money for.

I can't dispute numbers that aren't defensible, but that's the market they're in. Their product management needs to estimate costs and profit before development even starts. You can't modify a sold product's EULA on a whim for a cash grab. It's arguably illegal.

& I'm sure Detroit would like a chunk of the used car market

Actually, Detroit does have a chunk of the used car market: parts and service. And a few years down the line, possibly a trade-in for a new vehicle.

The equivalent in software terms is DLC. Plus marketing opportunities through online registration and support forums. And a few months down the line, possibly the purchase of the sequel. If they kill the used software market (and that's what this will do) they lose an active license that they could be poking for upgrades.

Does anyone have another example of a licensing scheme that reaches beyond the grave of the sale to reach into your wallet again? (The "artist" house builder is a good example, by the way... and maybe as hateful. )

 

[Derangel]

I can't dispute numbers that aren't defensible, but that's the market they're in. Their product management needs to estimate costs and profit before development even starts. You can't modify a sold product's EULA on a whim for a cash grab. It's arguably illegal.

The legality of the EULA itself is something worth debating, but EA isn't stupid (at least I'd hope not). I'm sure their army of lawyers looked into this. And I can bet that EA won't be the only studio doing this for long. Especially if there isn't a huge out cry from sports fans. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the whole locking MP thing either. Doing stuff for SP only games. Eh, sure. Locking out a big selling feature for a game? I dunno.

 

[Ranma]

So what about the right of sale? You no longer own what you are buying? Are they going to put something like this in the EULA that you can't accept until you open the package and then can't return it?