Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
EA Online Pass
-
10-05-2010 10:22pm#1EA are now going to be charging $10 (I'd guess that'll translate to €10) to re-register a game for online play? So a used copy of Fifa 11 will have to be re-enabled for €10 in order to be able to play online.
http://www.easports.com/onlinepass
There's no way I'll be buying a game with such a low resale value.
Apologies if there's already a huge thread here somewhere that I've missed
Edit: "I don’t think even the harshest cynic can argue with that and instead I think fans will see the value we’re committing to deliver when they see all the services, features and bonus content that is extending the life of their products."
(*snigger*)0
Comments
-
They were already doing this under the guise of the "cerberus network" and that shale dlc in Dragon Age, but at least there you got something if you bought pre-owned and decided to go all OCD and say i need that horse armour
But charging for online play is a new low, would make a game like battlefield 2 BC worthless on the trade in market :mad:
the majority of people who play online play from launch and on a new copy of the game, which add's to the penny grabbing of it all
Edit: This kind of makes me reconsider getting skate 3 now given the trouble I had with bf:bc and skate 2 with it's poxy ea nation disconnects0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Your beef should actually be with GameStop et al who have forced publishers hands in taking measures like this due to the immense revenue lost due to the second hand market.Deleted User wrote: »I really hate EA . They were the first company to abuse DLC and get people to pay extra to unlock content that was available on disk.
Whats worse is the people that buy it . Now just to pay to play online is a load of crap. Maybe it would be worth it, if they could do somthing to stop the cheaters glitcher's and quiters.
Additional content can often make perfect sense if you consider the technical aspect of online play. As for single-player based stuff, unless it's functionality that was missing from the final game then I don't really see the problem with it.
Back to EA's policy, I do find it amusing that they're going back to one of the oldest and simplest forms of DRM, the good 'ol CD Key. Sure as hell beats the more instrusive solutions 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
From a retailers point of view ..
This is a very complicated area with a few variables to consider.- Trade ins fuel new game sales. A huge portion of new game sales are paid for in part exchange in the form of pre owned titles being traded in. Most publishers are aware and accept this. Publishers don't have a problem with pre owned titles being used to pay for new titles but the grey area is where the pre owned title is then sold / traded in against another pre owned title which has no benefit to them.
- However this drove up the cost price of new games as publishers sought to increase revenue. This is in both the form of cost price to retailers and the RRP's that go with them. In most cases and particularly in the last couple of years the retailers are selling the games at well below the RRP and in some cases selling at a loss. This is so they can get the loyalty of the customer and more importantly get the trade ins for them. It's no secret that the pre owned margins are a lot higher than new. New games could be anything from -5% to 10% margin with pre owned games at 40% (I'm going to defend ourselves here by pointing out that we don't operate on these pre owned margins ourselves but the major high street chains do) The industry is in a situation where the trade in market is actually keeping new game prices lower than the publishers themselves recommend and its the revenue from the trade in sales that is paying the bills / wages.
- Initiatives such as this or project $10 etc are going to change the dynamic of the market - this is inevitable. What is happening is that the €10 - €15 you would pay on top of your pre owned titles cost to access the features present in a new game will mean your pre owned games retail value will drop. This of course means what is b eing offered for trade in credit will also drop.
- What remains to be seen though is how this will change the market. My personal opinion is that if the pre owned trade in prices fall / the product becomes less attractive to the end user gamer then demand for new games will fall. Also if the pre owned trade is stifled as such I can't see retailers like Game / Gamestop etc being in a position to continue loss leading and price slashing the RRPs which will lead to higher retail prices for new games. That's a double whammy for publishers, less demand because of less cash in the market and a higher retail price too. I think ultimately publishers will have to react to the supply and demand economics of this and cut new game prices but whether or not retailers will be in a position to pass these cuts on will be another question.
- It makes for a changed landscape in the gaming industry and how it actually settles is anyones guess but we are going to see significant moving of the pricing goal posts as such.
0 -
I wonder will it take hackers long to break the codes required to register to play online...
This is really a new low for gaming I tend to buy 2nd hand because I can't afford new releases... at this rate of going I'll not be able to play anything online soon
also I'm assuming now that we have to pay for the privilege of online gaming the servers will be left on for years to come will they0 -
-
Advertisement
-
gilberto_eire wrote: »I take it you didn't have PES 08(can't comment was the system the same for 09/10 as i didnt get those), as when the code that came with the game was used you couldnt play AT ALL as it had a password/code attached
Wow, didn't know that. I didn't have a PS3 back then. Konami obviously learned their lesson since though 0 -
-
Just to play devils advocate here and don't shoot me because I am tied to a retailers perspective but would you feel the same about selling your game to a friend or on adverts etc. Should these sales also involve a payment to the original publishers ? 0
-
Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »Just to play devils advocate here and don't shoot me because I am tied to a retailers perspective but would you feel the same about selling your game to a friend or on adverts etc. Should these sales also involve a payment to the original publishers ?
no
because your friend/buyer on adverts wouldnt screw you on the amount they give you for the game, and then sell the game on for 4 times what they paid for it0 -
-
no
because your friend/buyer on adverts wouldnt screw you on the amount they give you for the game, and then sell the game on for 4 times what they paid for it
But why is what is subsequently done with the game in question relevant ? (Putting aside the margin being made for another days debate but my post earlier in this thread has my views on it) If the original publisher is entitled to a share of the subsequent sale of the product then surely selling to your friend etc should have the same obligation ? 0 -
Advertisement
-
Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »But why is what is subsequently done with the game in question relevant ? (Putting aside the margin being made for another days debate but my post earlier in this thread has my views on it) If the original publisher is entitled to a share of the subsequent sale of the product then surely selling to your friend etc should have the same obligation ?
well then whats the difference between that me buying a game, ripping it, and uploading it for my mate?
the developers are still losing out on potential (see potential, very important) income
im all for second hand games, im just playing devils advocate on the fact that people will on the one hand say its perfectly fine, and then slam piracy when theyre both losing developers millions and millions a year
im writing an article on it at the moment... finding it hard to get anyone to lend their name to it though, it seems nobody wants to piss off retailers, but its something that the industry sees as a huge problem0 -
well then whats the difference between that me buying a game, ripping it, and uploading it for my mate?
the developers are still losing out on potential (see potential, very important) income
im all for second hand games, im just playing devils advocate on the fact that people will on the one hand say its perfectly fine, and then slam piracy when theyre both losing developers millions and millions a year
im writing an article on it at the moment... finding it hard to get anyone to lend their name to it though, it seems nobody wants to piss off retailers, but its something that the industry sees as a huge problem
The difference is that the trade in market is fueling new game sales and this in turn provides revenue to the publishers / developers. Most if not all publishers accept and welcome this (even if that is welcomed privately) the main issue is with pre owned games being traded in against other pre owned games which doesn't directly generate new revenue for the publishers. I see a big difference between trading in and piracy for this reason. 0 -
Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »The difference is that the trade in market is fueling new game sales and this in turn provides revenue to the publishers / developers. Most if not all publishers accept and welcome this (even if that is welcomed privately) the main issue is with pre owned games being traded in against other pre owned games which doesn't directly generate new revenue for the publishers. I see a big difference between trading in and piracy for this reason.
nobody ive spoken to is remotely happy about the used games market tbh
possibly its more that theyre irked at the huge mark up from retailers on second hand games purchased for a pittance from punters. i mean youll go into store x, trade in your game for €10 store credit, and see it on the shelf the next day for €45
thats disgustingly greedy from the retailers0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
theres also a good deal of price fixing going on amongst publishers, and one console manufacturer though im sure you'll agree. nobody comes out clean in it, and the punters are essentially being screwed by everyone, but i still think this online pass is a perfectly fair deal if it means game servers stay active longer
what id like is retailers having to sign some sort of agreement to sell second hand games, whereby they cant resell for more than 30% the price theyve paid the punter for his game - in line with your own pricing i may add, kudos for that
never gonna happen though
I've said this before - we would be perfectly willing to sign any kind of agreement be it revenue share in pre owned sales or something similar if it were to bring down the cost price of new games. If that could be done then everyone wins. Unfortunately we are only a very small player and nobody listens to us 0 -
-
The trade-in market is fueling some new games sales. I can only speak from personal experience and from those I know but none of us trade games in for exactly the reasons stated in previous posts. If some of them aren't that keen on a game but wouldn't mind playing it, then they'll wait for it to drop in price.Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »The difference is that the trade in market is fueling new game sales and this in turn provides revenue to the publishers / developers. Most if not all publishers accept and welcome this (even if that is welcomed privately) the main issue is with pre owned games being traded in against other pre owned games which doesn't directly generate new revenue for the publishers. I see a big difference between trading in and piracy for this reason.
On this matter it should also be pointed out that the trade-in market has exploded over the last few years whereas the actual market for new games hasn't increased as much. One need only look at the $2b revenue GameStop made in a single year thanks to those trade-ins for proof of this. While this of course isn't profit, it still ends up being hundreds of millions of dollars which the industry isn't seeing.
Which leads me onto my own feelings on the matter, my issue is not with second hand sales in theory, it is more to do with the level it has been pushed by the retailers in order to boost their own profits. Second hand prices are through the roof, shelves are stocked to the brim with second hand copies of games and even the Top 10 charts in many stores are comprised solely of second hand games. With behavior like this it's hard to feel any sympathy for them. If you want a better example, look at it like this. What is going to happen when this starts affecting customers? GameStop et al, will reduce the price they offer the customer for their second hand sale but will they reduce the price they re-sell it for? I'll give you one guess...
Spoiler: They won't.
The price can quite simply not be lowered bearing in mind current development costs.Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »I've said this before - we would be perfectly willing to sign any kind of agreement be it revenue share in pre owned sales or something similar if it were to bring down the cost price of new games. If that could be done then everyone wins. Unfortunately we are only a very small player and nobody listens to us0 -
-
-
Basically it comes down to smaller development teams, very different development cycles and open source / cheap development tools.How are perfectly fine and very polished games like Toy Story and Defense Grid and Braid and P Winterbottom and and and being produced for a tenner??
Compared to yet-another-freakin-FPS-skin-on-some-engine those games take a lot more coding...
DeV.
That being said, over it's three year development cycle, Braid cost Jonathon Blow around $200,000. World of Goo, on the other hand, cost approximately $96,000 over two years. The development processes for these games have been highlighted several times across sites like Gamasutra and certainly make for extremely interesting reading.
One thing many of these games have in common however, is that they are created by industry veterans who have become sick of working for a larger company and decided to go it alone and do their own thing. Clearly this can work out very well for some but for every major success like Braid there is a myriad of mediocre titles or those that are never finished.
The danger of allowing people to progress through the game via either time and effort or money is that it unbalances the play horrifically. One need only look at the utter mess that was made of Battlefield Heroes when they brought in the payment model for upgrades.By the way... just to merrily toss a bomb into this thread in passing, I was at the demo of Need For Speed World in London and they have an interesting take on this...
You get the game free and pay for server time and you CAN pay for upgrades if you like or you can work to get the same upgrades through advancement.
I dunno how I feel about that but I like free trials cos then I know what I'm getting. You get 10 levels of progression free.
As for paying for what you use, I must say I'm delighted to see more developers and publishers adopting this approach. Even better in APB is the fact that, just like in Eve Online, you can pay for more gameplay through in-game achievements. Personally I'd much prefer those kinds of rewards rather than an extra badge beside my name. 0 -
-
-
Well that quote was in the context of full price AAA games which are subsequently traded-in and resold, XBLA/PSN aren't really in this bracket.You said "The price can quite simply not be lowered bearing in mind current development costs." but your subsequent post confirms that that can be done.
In fact the very existance of XBLA confirms it.
That point aside, the types of indie games you are referring to are the ones which also have the far smaller development teams and cheaper tools to work with. They also have, as Thaedydal pointed out, no real advertising budgets, relying instead on exposure from the likes of IGF and word of mouth to gain popularity.
If, however, your question is why do games need such big budgets when there are some fantastic games made with far less money then that's a different issue. Unfortunately it's one I find somewhat irrelveant, especially if one is to look at other forms of media for similar examples. At the movies for instances, sure we've had some fantastic indie movies over the last number of years (Empire have a nice run down of some of them) but does that mean we can't also have the Avatars and The Dark Knights?
The difference is the level of investment between the smaller indie games and the AAA bigger budget. If the latter fails then major money can be lost, jobs are cut and even studios closed. All of these issues are signifcantly reduced or not applicable in the case of indie games.Sure there are some winners and losers, how is that any different from the big studios? You think the makers of Too Human are sitting there necking tequila sunrises?
As for Silicon Knights, well I'd imagine they're working away on their next title at the moment. 0 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement