Well EA are officially disgusting Rip Off Merchants

SeantheMan

So myself and my housemate bought Fifa 11 yesterday, hoping to go online and deliver some spankings.
But apparently we BOTH need a seperate redeem code to play online.
Now this does not bother me given that I can afford to buy my own copy, its an inconvenience.

However, for most parents who have 2+ children they will need to buy 1 copy(w/code) and either buy another code or another game...good job EA !:mad:

I am currently in the process of trying to find where I can buy a redeem code online from EA , it says EA Store ingame or XBOX marketplace but can't find it on either. So I will continue my search, failing that I will bite the bullet and fork out for a 2nd copy of the game.

I think its low of fifa to start this charging for online play, considering it wasn't in any previous iterations.
There goes 2nd hand buys of the game too

amacachi

SeantheMan wrote: »

So myself and my housemate bought Fifa 11 yesterday, hoping to go online and deliver some spankings.
But apparently we BOTH need a seperate redeem code to play online.
Now this does not bother me given that I can afford to buy my own copy, its an inconvenience.

However, for most parents who have 2+ children they will need to buy 1 copy(w/code) and either buy another code or another game...good job EA !:mad:

I am currently in the process of trying to find where I can buy a redeem code online from EA , it says EA Store ingame or XBOX marketplace but can't find it on either. So I will continue my search, failing that I will bite the bullet and fork out for a 2nd copy of the game.

I think its low of fifa to start this charging for online play, considering it wasn't in any previous iterations.
There goes 2nd hand buys of the game too

It's supposed to be to reduce the value of second-hand games, but you've been unintentionally burned by EA.

SeantheMan

Btw, if anyone knows where to buy this online redeem code, please can you post it here. Thanks

Update : Found and bought it...800 xbox points

deathrider

I think this is complete crap on their behalf. I don't play sports games myself, but there is no need for this, as people are already paying for Live without having to pay for indivual online for their new games.

As far as the second hand thing goes- In twelve months Fifa 11 will be obselete when Fifa 12 comes out anyways. Just like every other year, most peole will trade it in, and not very many people will buy second hand copies of last years edition. That's why Gamestop's selves are contantly full of second hand earlier versions of Fifa games.

Helix

SeantheMan wrote: »

I think its low of fifa to start this charging for online play, considering it wasn't in any previous iterations.
There goes 2nd hand buys of the game too

thats the point, its to make it so that the likes of gamestop cant bend people over and screw them for second hand games any more. its not just ea doing it either, expect to see a lot more of it in the near future

the blame here lies squarely at the feet of second hand games retailers with low buy back prices who then retailed the game for a fiver less then full price and got to keep every penny from it - no different to piracy and shouldnt be allowed

you think its bad now, wait until they start requiring you to enter a code from the manual the first time you play a game to make it work - coz thats coming... and imo the publishers are dead right

Helix

deathrider wrote: »

people are already paying for Live without having to pay for indivual online for their new games

you dont have to pay to play online with new games, you get the code for free with it - but it can only be used once

AdrianII

i bought a second hand version of TW11, got home tryed to play online and noticed that i needed a code as the previous owner used it.
Code cost 10euro or so.

So a 2nd hand game ended up costing me the price of a brand new retail version.

It is a lesson learned for me, but i can see why EA are doing this.

the likes of xtravision buy a game for 20euro then sell it for 40, EA get nothing for the second sale.

gizmo

SeantheMan wrote: »

So myself and my housemate bought Fifa 11 yesterday, hoping to go online and deliver some spankings.
But apparently we BOTH need a seperate redeem code to play online.
Now this does not bother me given that I can afford to buy my own copy, its an inconvenience.

So rather than buying two copies of the game you decided to split the price of the game and share it between you? And now you're complaining that both you and your housemate do not have full access to all online functionality? And you're calling them rip off merchants?

SeantheMan wrote: »

However, for most parents who have 2+ children they will need to buy 1 copy(w/code) and either buy another code or another game...good job EA !:mad:

The only part of this which is true is if that parent wants to buy one copy and let each child play it online with their own unique gamertag. They will not be able to do this as the code is tied to the gamertag. If it concerns them so much then let the kids use their gamertag in order to play online. If they refuse and don't want the kids online play to affect their own gamertag then they're in the same boat as you, they're expecting multiple people to benefit from a single purchase.

If, on the other and, the parent wants each of their children to be able to play online themselves then they'll be purchasing each of them a copy of the game and as such, they will get a code.

SeantheMan wrote: »

I am currently in the process of trying to find where I can buy a redeem code online from EA , it says EA Store ingame or XBOX marketplace but can't find it on either. So I will continue my search, failing that I will bite the bullet and fork out for a 2nd copy of the game.

Look at the "How To Buy An Online Pass" set of instructions here for more info.

SeantheMan wrote: »

I think its low of fifa to start this charging for online play, considering it wasn't in any previous iterations.
There goes 2nd hand buys of the game too

I think it's low of Gamestop to rip people off with second hand prices.
I think it's low that customers know the developers aren't getting a penny from second hand sales and don't care as long as they can save a couple of quid.
I do not think it's low for EA to expect to be paid for the content they produce.

witnessmenow

gizmo wrote: »

So rather than buying two copies of the game you decided to split the price of the game and share it between you? And now you're complaining that both you and your housemate do not have full access to all online functionality? And you're calling them rip off merchants?


The only part of this which is true is if that parent wants to buy one copy and let each child play it online with their own unique gamertag. They will not be able to do this as the code is tied to the gamertag. If it concerns them so much then let the kids use their gamertag in order to play online. If they refuse and don't want the kids online play to affect their own gamertag then they're in the same boat as you, they're expecting multiple people to benefit from a single purchase.

If, on the other and, the parent wants each of their children to be able to play online themselves then they'll be purchasing each of them a copy of the game and as such, they will get a code.


Look at the "How To Buy An Online Pass" set of instructions here for more info.


I think it's low of Gamestop to rip people off with second hand prices.
I think it's low that customers know the developers aren't getting a penny from second hand sales and don't care as long as they can save a couple of quid.
I do not think it's low for EA to expect to be paid for the content they produce.

I can understand why they are doing it, but not letting people on the same console play online with different accounts is BS

gizmo

witnessmenow wrote: »

I can understand why they are doing it, but not letting people on the same console play online with different accounts is BS

You're right, it is bs...because it's not true.

From the FAQ:

QUESTION : Do I need an unique Online Pass for every user on my console?
ANSWER : No. One Online Pass will give online access to multiple users logged into the console where the Online Pass was first activated (subject to the console manufacturer’s and EA online terms of service).

Also, the user that activated the Online Pass will be allowed to access online features on other consoles (of the same manufacturer) by logging into the same account credentials that they used when they enabled the Online Pass.

witnessmenow

gizmo wrote: »

You're right, it is bs...because it's not true. As long as the person with the online activated account is Player 1 then Player 2 will be able to go online also.

What is the op talking about so?

Two people playing on the same console at the one time?

gizmo

witnessmenow wrote: »

What is the op talking about so?

Two people playing on the same console at the one time?

Playing the game on different consoles I'd imagine?

Kiith

Does he not mean two different live profiles using the same game?

Helix

witnessmenow wrote: »

What is the op talking about so?

i assume buying a game between 2 consoles is what he was talking about

mayordenis

You'd swear every PC game for god knows how long and every MMO for god knows how long weren't doing this.

You know the way you go into Gamestop and they don't have a Second hand PC section? This is why, it's so the developers will get thier share a share that currently retailers are taking, it's completely fair in my eyes.

How much is Fifa going for this weekend? Around 45? So how is it fair that 2 people get the full game for €22.50 or however much, it's not.

Overheal

Meh. This is too new, but it will mete out. People will still play FIFA because theyre FIFA-fans and they love the **** out of it. I've seen the game and I get it. But, I wager there will be more out there that will (and already do, frankly) skip out on buying each successive generation of the title.

Yet another reason to support PC, and furthermore titles that support User-Dedicated Servers.

mayordenis

Overheal wrote: »

Meh. This is too new, but it will mete out. People will still play FIFA because theyre FIFA-fans and they love the **** out of it. I've seen the game and I get it. But, I wager there will be more out there that will (and already do, frankly) skip out on buying each successive generation of the title.

Yet another reason to support PC, and furthermore titles that support User-Dedicated Servers.

Sorry but what the **** are you talking about? How is this a reason to support PC gaming, all this is, is catching up with PC gaming on the DRM stakes.

gizmo

Overheal wrote: »

Meh. This is too new, but it will mete out. People will still play FIFA because theyre FIFA-fans and they love the **** out of it. I've seen the game and I get it. But, I wager there will be more out there that will (and already do, frankly) skip out on buying each successive generation of the title.

Yet another reason to support PC, and furthermore titles that support User-Dedicated Servers.

As mayordenis says, this has nothing to do with supporting the PC. Most PC games come with CD Keys which limit the use of software accordingly. At least with the online pass you can pick up another one for $10 rather than buying another copy of the game like for the PC.

Gunmonkey

mayordenis wrote: »

Sorry but what the **** are you talking about? How is this a reason to support PC gaming, all this is, is catching up with PC gaming on the DRM stakes.

I'm in the WTf camp too, haven't PC games used codes (cd-keys) since the dawn of time? And now with so many games using Steam (or bought on it) you are locked to one person playing it, even for single player games.

And EA moved for the online only as they do offer servers for their games, the constant cost to upkeep old games servers (and their inevitable shutdown when intrest has all but evaporated) was what sparked them to look for ways to mitigate that cost.

johnny_ultimate

This has been going on for months now - Mass Effect 2, for example, had a one off code that entitled first time buyers to lots (OK, some) of extra content, which was a once off code.

Personally, I agree with it. Now, I totally agree that families are the ones getting damaged by it. But to cut out the second hand games trade - which to me is far more of a rip off than the online code business - I think it's a clever ploy. I don't fully agree with it, but it does go someway towards sorting out the Gamestop problem. After all, paying a fiver less than the new copy may seem like good value, but it's just going straight to the shop as opposed to the developers who deserve it more.

So EA > Gamestop. I think it's the lesser of two evils to be honest!

SeantheMan

witnessmenow wrote: »

What is the op talking about so?

Two people playing on the same console at the one time?

You're right, it is bs...because it's not true. As long as the person with the online activated account is Player 1 then Player 2 will be able to go online also

My friend Nellser bought the game, we use the 1 console for everything.
My account SeanderMann tried to play the game online as per Fifa 10 and Fifa WC and every other game we have online. But I couldn't.

We can play vrs each other without a code, so there is no need if the 2 of us are to play.

I did buy a code in the end to activate my own account.

The only part of this which is true is if that parent wants to buy one copy and let each child play it online with their own unique gamertag. They will not be able to do this as the code is tied to the gamertag. If it concerns them so much then let the kids use their gamertag in order to play online. If they refuse and don't want the kids online play to affect their own gamertag then they're in the same boat as you, they're expecting multiple people to benefit from a single purchase.

If, on the other and, the parent wants each of their children to be able to play online themselves then they'll be purchasing each of them a copy of the game and as such, they will get a code

I don't think its much to expect multiple people to benefit from a single purchase. In the history of consoles, never have families needed to buy 2 copies of game in order to experience the game fully. If you had a brother and shared a console with him, would you tell him to go buy his own COD:MW or Fifa10 or Street Fighter...because its wrong for more than 1 person to be enjoying the family purchase ??

gizmo

SeantheMan wrote: »

My friend Nellser bought the game, we use the 1 console for everything.
My account SeanderMann tried to play the game online as per Fifa 10 and Fifa WC and every other game we have online. But I couldn't.

We can play vrs each other without a code, so there is no need if the 2 of us are to play.

I did buy a code in the end to activate my own account.

Well according to the FAQ on the EA website and a couple of forum posts online that I've looked at, you should be able to do the above no problem.

SeantheMan wrote: »

I don't think its much to expect multiple people to benefit from a single purchase. In the history of consoles, never have families needed to buy 2 copies of game in order to experience the game fully. If you had a brother and shared a console with him, would you tell him to go buy his own COD:MW or Fifa10 or Street Fighter...because its wrong for more than 1 person to be enjoying the family purchase ??

Well first off, not to nitpick but this wasn't a case of a family member, this was simply a mate. The only difference between you buying a copy and then just giving it to a friend to play through and this was that you happened to live under the same roof. It would still result in a lost sale however.

That being said, given the above info it appears either EA are lying in their FAQ or you were simply doing it wrong

Orim

Wasn't this announced ages ago? (This forum moves a lot faster than I thought)

Support the devs/publishers. Fúck preowned sellers (At least the companies. )

SeantheMan

gizmo wrote: »

Well first off, not to nitpick but this wasn't a case of a family member, this was simply a mate. The only difference between you buying a copy and then just giving it to a friend to play through and this was that you happened to live under the same roof. It would still result in a lost sale however.

I did mention in the original post that it wasnt as much of a problem for me as I can afford it to buy another copy or redeem code if needed. My concern lay with families or kids who would get it for their birthday / xmas is all

But as everyone metioned, with Fifa people will always stick with the current release of the game. Noone really trades in Fifa10 until Fifa11 comes out. And it will be the same for this one I imagine.

Grumpypants

The one point people are missing is that the new game in gamestop is 20 euro below what the publisher wants them to charge you for it. Thats the only reason they have it next to the used version with a fiver in the difference.

I cant see how if Gamestop paid more for second hand games and sold them cheaper and then charged the publishers RRP of €69.99 for new games and then put the second hand game on a different shelf for €39.99 would help to drive new game sales. If the new game is a fiver more ill more than likely buy the new one, if its 25-30 more ill stick with the used version.

Or even if they scrap the second hand market altogether and charge people 70euro for a new game and remove the ability to trade in the game if it turns out to be yet another 7 hour long game with little play back value. This means ill never buy another FIFA/Call of duty franchise as i couldnt justify paying 70 euro for a map pack.

I cant see how either of those options will help publishers and the publishers know this, this is why they just dont refuse to sell their games in stores that offer trade ins.

This online code is scumbag stuff they have already been paid for that game to go online now they are charging twice. If they wanted to be fair about it they would reduce what they charge shops by a tenner and then charge everyone to go online but again they wont do that because they fail to mention that 30% of people never go online so that is a potential 30% profit margin on their online side of each game. Really fair aren't they !!

mayordenis

Grumpypants wrote: »

This online code is scumbag stuff they have already been paid for that game to go online now they are charging twice. If they wanted to be fair about it they would reduce what they charge shops by a tenner and then charge everyone to go online but again they wont do that because they fail to mention that 30% of people never go online so that is a potential 30% profit margin on their online side of each game. Really fair aren't they !!

That's nonsense, absolute nonsense, IF a person buys the game second hand or borrows it from a friend, have they given the developer any money? YES or NO? Those are your options yes or no.

Edit... Just read the rest of your ****e about 30% of people never going online, What relevance does that have?

jaykhunter

mayordenis wrote: »

That's nonsense, absolute nonsense, IF a person buys the game second hand or borrows it from a friend, have they given the developer any money? YES or NO? Those are your options yes or no.

2nd hand games : why should the developers (and original retailers etc) get any money, though? It's not their property any more. 2nd hand CDs, DVDs, cars, anything on eBay etc; the developers or original proprietors don't get a cut. Why should video games be any different?

Developers should work out a better deal for getting a bigger slice of the pie, since they only get ~$27 from a $60 game. Or start their own used game chain, instead of doing what's easiest, screwing over the consumer. They should be going after GameStop, who annoys them in the first place (seeing their sweet used game profits), not us

They should also be looking into fully downloadable new games (on XBL/PSN), which would really cut out a lot of the middle men that add to the cost of a physical copy of a game.

oh, 30% of people never going online, he's saying that 30% of people are 'paying $10 for a service they don't use'.

Grumpypants

mayordenis wrote: »

That's nonsense, absolute nonsense, IF a person buys the game second hand or borrows it from a friend, have they given the developer any money? YES or NO? Those are your options yes or no.

Edit... Just read the rest of your ****e about 30% of people never going online, What relevance does that have?

No they don't nor should they, the developer has already been paid why should the developer get paid twice and not offer anything extra?

If i buy 1 game the publisher gets paid for 1 player to be online, if i give that game to someone else and he goes online. How many people are online ? 1. And how many have paid to go online ? 1

What you are saying is that the developer should be paid for hosting 2 people online even though they only host 1. Thats nonsense absolute nonsense

What relevance does the 30% have? i thought that was quite clear. The cost of hosting the online aspect of a game is factored into the price of the game.

So if they sell 1 million copies they get paid to host 1 million players online but if up to 30% dont ever go online then the they only pay to host 700,000 players online. This reduces the cost of hosting the game online by 30% increasing the profit they make from that by 30%.

johnnyjb

AdrianII wrote: »

i bought a second hand version of TW11, got home tryed to play online and noticed that i needed a code as the previous owner used it.
Code cost 10euro or so.

So a 2nd hand game ended up costing me the price of a brand new retail version.

It is a lesson learned for me, but i can see why EA are doing this.

the likes of xtravision buy a game for 20euro then sell it for 40, EA get nothing for the second sale.

So what if you buy the game new first day its yours. if your boss taught you how to work a computer, plumb a house, cut someones hair you are hardly not gonna use that info outside of work. EA sold the game and its yours to give or sell to who ever you want (within reason).

You wont be able to sell a bit of second hand furniture or a microwave next without the the things having a self destruct mode in case greedy developers dont squeeze every pennny they think is owed to them

Let EA go after the game stores. Ill just not go on line (microsoft lose out) then ill just stop buying the games full stop.

krudler

I agree that the game stores, not the consumers, should be the ones footing the cost.

Theres two aspects to this:

1. Game company makes game, sells it through game store, gets their share of the revenue, customer gets game, everyone happy.

2.Customer sells game back to game store. Game store pays way less what they'll sell same game to customer B for. Game company gets nothing as a result. Game store gets more profit.

3. Customer sells game privately to friend/ebay/adverts/Joe down the pub, whoever. Game company still gets nothing, neither does game store.

Its a grey area tbh, I dont see why we should have to pay to play games online when you're already paying for an online service, that sucks. The once off code thing doesnt bother me so much as I rarely trade in my games and NEVER buy 2nd hand ones. I just hate the thought someone has had their grubby mitts all over my games, factory sealed brand new ftw. Especially when the difference between new and 2nd hand is normally about a fiver.

Magill

ye its ****ing bull****. We have 2 ps3's (Mine + family one). We'll soon have too buy two copies of most games because of this ****... EA and co are targeting the wrong ppl, anyone that disagrees with that can suck a dong.

Varik

Magill wrote: »

ye its ****ing bull****. We have 2 ps3's (Mine + family one). We'll soon have too buy two copies of most games because of this ****... EA and co are targeting the wrong ppl, anyone that disagrees with that can suck a dong.

Why would you need to buy 2 games , if you were only buying one before and using it on the 2 ps3 then you'd need to buy the code for a lot less than a full price game.

If you buy a new game you get 1 code, so buy an additional code for €10.

If you buy a used game, buy the 2 codes. in this case you aren't paying the publisher or developer anything so of course they don't have any reason to be nice or provide you with anything unless additionally paid.

You can also put you psn ids on both consoles and it will work as before 1 game + 1 code, as gizmo was saying.



Games are software and a legally covered as such but most of the law are not applied to them as there mostly seen as toys, you don't own a game you have the licence to use it that why there are no second hand pc games more so than the use of Cd keys.

gizmo

SeantheMan wrote: »

I did mention in the original post that it wasnt as much of a problem for me as I can afford it to buy another copy or redeem code if needed. My concern lay with families or kids who would get it for their birthday / xmas is all.

Well I'd recommend holding off on the concern and/or rage until we get other people to test if the FAQ is true. If so there is very little for anyone to be complaining about.

jaykhunter wrote: »

2nd hand games : why should the developers (and original retailers etc) get any money, though? It's not their property any more. 2nd hand CDs, DVDs, cars, anything on eBay etc; the developers or original proprietors don't get a cut. Why should video games be any different?

This has come up time and time again. The main example usually used is cars, in this market auto dealerships DO pay the manufacturers a fee in order to sell the cars so they are getting something back from used games sales. Which leads us on to the next point...

jaykhunter wrote: »

Developers should work out a better deal for getting a bigger slice of the pie, since they only get ~$27 from a $60 game. Or start their own used game chain, instead of doing what's easiest, screwing over the consumer. They should be going after GameStop, who annoys them in the first place (seeing their sweet used game profits), not us

Publishers have tried this and retailers told them to stick it. If a similar system existed whereby they paid X% of second hand sales back to publishers then it wouldn't be an issue but they won't so publishers have tackled the problem directly via the online pass for second hand copies.

jaykhunter wrote: »

They should also be looking into fully downloadable new games (on XBL/PSN), which would really cut out a lot of the middle men that add to the cost of a physical copy of a game.

While digital distribution is certainly taking off on the PC it'll be awhile before it finds mainstream success on consoles. Hell look at the number of people on both console forums who are using wireless internet from the mobile providers. With caps like those people couldn't afford to be downloading 5-8GB worth of data for every game.

Magill wrote: »

ye its ****ing bull****. We have 2 ps3's (Mine + family one). We'll soon have too buy two copies of most games because of this ****... EA and co are targeting the wrong ppl, anyone that disagrees with that can suck a dong.

So sign into your profile on whichever console you want to play it on, that means you'll definitely be able to play online. The only question from there is whether the online-pass enabled profile being on THAT console enables the other accounts to play. Basically the same thing I said to SeantheMan above.

Anyway, you can afford two PS3 and, I assume, two HDTVs to go with them, and you're raging over possibly having to spend $10 extra so that multiple people can get enjoyment from a single purchase? :pac:

mayordenis

Grumpypants wrote: »

No they don't nor should they, the developer has already been paid why should the developer get paid twice and not offer anything extra?

Why should the developer get payed twice for 2 different people to fully enjoy the license of a game? Why must 2 people pay for seperate ticket to the cinema? Why if me and my friend each want a burger must we buy our own?

Whats the difference from the developers point of view between

a. You Grumpypants buying a game and selling it to Gamestop, and then them selling it to another person.

or

b. You Grumpypants buying a game and copying the game and giving it to another person.

Helix

Grumpypants wrote: »

This online code is scumbag stuff they have already been paid for that game to go online now they are charging twice.

youre really missing the point here. if you buy the game from the publisher (ie first hand sale) you get the code for free. if you buy the game second hand you have to pay a tenner for the code. youre not paying twice if you buy new, the code is there for free

Grumpypants wrote: »

they fail to mention that 30% of people never go online so that is a potential 30% profit margin on their online side of each game. Really fair aren't they !!

but if those 30% of people buy the game new theyre paying nothing for their online code, so its costing them nothing extra. and if those 30% buy it second hand, they dont need to code, so have no need to pay for it, so its costing them nothing extra.

how are the publishers profiting from 30% who dont go online exactly, since both the above statements are true? those people dont pay for the online pass

Helix

Magill wrote: »

ye its ****ing bull****. We have 2 ps3's (Mine + family one). We'll soon have too buy two copies of most games because of this ****...

no yo wont

jesus people REALLY dont get how this works do they. lets break it down

you buy a game new, you get an online pass with it. this online pass allows the original registrant to play online on any console, and any online accounts on the original console are able to play too. what does this mean? it means if you have 2 ps3s, you put the disk into console A (which is owned by player 1), log in as player 2 (who owns console and use the online pass provided free with the game.

now player 2 can log into console B, the machine he owns, and play the game online without any problems, and player 1 can log onto console A and do the same - with one copy of the game

the onyl reason you would need 2 copies of the game in this case, is if the 2 players ever wanted to play against each other online.

so, summation of how online pass works

if you buy the game new, you get the online pass free. you DO NOT HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING EXTRA TO USE THE GAME ONLINE IF YOU BUY IT NEW. NOTHING. NO ADDITIONAL FEE, NO COST, NOTHING. ITS INCLUDED IN THE PRICE OF THE GAME

if however you buy the game second hand, for a saving of what is normally a fiver, you need to buy an online pass in order to use the game online. this is because the publisher doesnt see a penny of the cash you just spent on the second hand game.

everyone is up in arms complaining they cant buy games second hand now or theyve to buy an online pass. if you're REALLY that stuck for cash that you cant afford a fiver extra to buy a game new then you shouldnt be spending your money on video games

Grumpypants

mayordenis wrote: »

Why should the developer get payed twice for 2 different people to fully enjoy the license of a game? Why must 2 people pay for seperate ticket to the cinema? Why if me and my friend each want a burger must we buy our own?

Whats the difference from the developers point of view between

a. You Grumpypants buying a game and selling it to Gamestop, and then them selling it to another person.

or

b. You Grumpypants buying a game and copying the game and giving it to another person.

If you are going to use comparisons then you have to use two things that are comparable. It would be more like me buying a burger eating half of it and giving the other half to my mate. Then the guy from the chipper van chasing after use demanding we pay for a second burger even though there was no extra cost to him as two of use have enjoyed it and me giving him some cost him a sale:eek: . 2 people going into the cinema takes up two seats in the cinema thats why they can charge for two people.

The difference in you little question is that one is legal the other is illegal. Also in the point b i would retain a copy of the game so the cost to the developer of hosting the two us us online would be more than the cost of hosting one of us online.

Ive no problem if developers want to charge a licence, if EA turned around and said its 50 euro a year for a FIFA licence and every Oct 1st we post you the new software disk for free then great thats fine. But they dont, they sell me the new software every year it is not a licence to play the game you buy the actual game.

Have you ever bought a DVD and then 2 or 3 of ye sit down to watch it ? See anything wrong with that? Or should each of ye buy a separate copy?

This is about a code to play online, as ive said if they want to charge to play online then fair enough but charge everyone. That way the ones who dont go online get a cheaper game and those that do go online pay the same as they do now and those who buy it second hand also pay only if they go online.

Helix

Grumpypants wrote: »

If you are going to use comparisons then you have to use two things that are comparable. It would be more like me buying a burger eating half of it and giving the other half to my mate. Then the guy from the chipper van chasing after use demanding we pay for a second burger even though there was no extra cost to him as two of use have enjoyed it and me giving him some cost him a sale

yeah, thats not remotely comparable

with a game bought new, traded in then bought second hand, do you both only get half the game or something? fine, if you buy the game new and dont play it online coz you dont want to, then give it to your mate then he can use the online pass provided with it for free

otherwise, he needs to buy his own for a tenner

Helix

Grumpypants wrote: »

But they dont, they sell me the new software every year it is not a licence to play the game you buy the actual game.
.

you sir need to read the EULA in the manual of every game you own, and actually learn what on earth youre talking about. because you couldnt be any more wrong, at all

Grumpypants

Helix wrote: »

youre really missing the point here. if you buy the game from the publisher (ie first hand sale) you get the code for free. if you buy the game second hand you have to pay a tenner for the code. youre not paying twice if you buy new, the code is there for free

but if those 30% of people buy the game new theyre paying nothing for their online code, so its costing them nothing extra. and if those 30% buy it second hand, they dont need to code, so have no need to pay for it, so its costing them nothing extra.

how are the publishers profiting from 30% who dont go online exactly, since both the above statements are true? those people dont pay for the online pass

I never said you are paying twice for the code if you buy new. I said the publisher is getting paid twice, if they charge the second hand user to go online as i have already paid for that game to be used online. The debate on the disk being locked is a seperate debate. This is about an online access code for something they have already been paid for. If that game is traded in 100 times they get 100 times the cost of hosting one player online yet they still only have the cost of hosting 1 player online.

And you don't get the code for free with the original you paid 50 or 60 euro for the game that's not free. The cost of the online side is all included in the retail price. Something cant be free if you have to pay for it. It would be like saying this game is free but the CD its on costs 50 euro then that game isnt free!!!

Varik

Helix wrote: »

you sir need to read the EULA in the manual of every game you own, and actually learn what on earth youre talking about. because you couldnt be any more wrong, at all

And considering a US court just made the precedent that EULA must be adhered to, when dealing with second hand games the publishers/Developers will have a good chance of banning used games there.

Mental_Legend

It's not just EA doing it now. As far as I know, THQ did it with UFC 2010 aswell.

ntlbell

Grumpypants wrote: »

I never said you are paying twice for the code if you buy new. I said the publisher is getting paid twice, if they charge the second hand user to go online as i have already paid for that game to be used online. The debate on the disk being locked is a seperate debate. This is about an online access code for something they have already been paid for. If that game is traded in 100 times they get 100 times the cost of hosting one player online yet they still only have the cost of hosting 1 player online.

If the game is traded in 100 times they get paid for one license to use the code and 100 people get to play the game, so they don't get paid for 99 licenses?

Grumpypants wrote: »

And you don't get the code for free with the original you paid 50 or 60 euro for the game that's not free. The cost of the online side is all included in the retail price. Something cant be free if you have to pay for it. It would be like saying this game is free but the CD its on costs 50 euro then that game isnt free!!!

There has been no added cost for the online pass.

The cost of the license is still the same to you today as it was before the online pass. You're paying for a license to use the code, not the online pass.

If you buy the game second hand, no money goes toward the license for the use of the code, so you pay a small fee for your online pass, which is basically a cheaper version of the license to use the software.

Grumpypants

Helix wrote: »

you sir need to read the EULA in the manual of every game you own, and actually learn what on earth youre talking about. because you couldnt be any more wrong, at all

You know that a game manual isn't actual law in the same way ryanairs T&C's are not actual law as was proven during the ash cloud. Also it explains why the sale of an Autocad disk is illegal but the sale of a game isn't.

The rights it refers to are source rights ie you dont know own the game code. By buying this disk you don't own a part of the FIFA game. You do actually own that physical disk and box in front of you they cant come and take that off you. You do know that ?

And it states You shall not use the product or permit the use of this product on more then one console at the time.

Im not using it on two consoles at once

Grumpypants

Varik wrote: »

And considering a US court just made the precedent that EULA must be adhered to, when dealing with second hand games the publishers/Developers will have a good chance of banning used games there.

That case was an ebay seller who sold Autocad which is licensed software and illegal to sell. This is not the case here other wise every Gamestop would have pulled the games from the shelves.

gizmo

From the PC EULA of Fifa 11...

1. Limited License Grant and Terms of Use.

A. Grant. Through this purchase, you are acquiring and EA grants you a personal, limited, non-exclusive license to install and use the Software for your non-commercial use solely as set forth in this License and the accompanying documentation. Your acquired rights are subject to your compliance with this Agreement. Any commercial use is prohibited. You are expressly prohibited from sub-licensing, renting, leasing or otherwise distributing the Software or rights to use the Software, except by transfer as expressly set forth in paragraph 2 below. The term of your License shall commence on the date that you install or otherwise use the Software, and shall end on the earlier of the date that you dispose of or transfer the Software; or EA's termination of this License. Your license will terminate immediately if you attempt to circumvent the technical protection measures for the Software. A separate Terms of Service agreement governs your use of online services in connection with the Software. You may view the Terms of Service agreement at http://terms.ea.com.

...

2. Transfer. You may make a one-time permanent transfer of all your rights to install and use the Software to another individual or legal entity provided that: (a) the Technical Protection Measures used by the Software supports such transfers; (b) you also transfer this License and all copies of the Software; (c) you retain no copies of the Software, upgrades, updates or prior versions; and (d) the receiving party accepts the terms and conditions of this License. Such transfer may not include access to any online feature, service or functionality, or right thereto, including updates, patches, unlocked or downloadable content, dynamically served content and other online features and/or services that require registration with the enclosed access code, that are limited to one user account and/or that are otherwise non-transferable. If you purchased this Software via digital download and if you wish to transfer the Software in accordance with the terms of this License, EA recommends that you de-authorize all of your machines to allow the transferee to authorize the Software on his/her own machines; otherwise, the transferee may not be able to authorize the Software on any additional machines. For more information, visit http://activate.ea.com/deauthorize. EA may require that any end user of the Software register the Software online as a condition of use and/or purchase additional Licenses. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, YOU MAY NOT TRANSFER PRE-RELEASE COPIES OF THE SOFTWARE.

And yes, we're aware EULAs aren't binding in this country yet but if we follow the US, and hopefully we do in this respect, then they will be soon.

As a sidenote, the Autodesk decision was incorrect too imo:

In its reply, Autodesk argued that Vernor was not the lawful owner of the software he was selling because Autodesk only licenses copies of its software rather than selling them. Therefore, Autodesk claimed, no "sale" to the software's original owner had occurred, and the First Sale Doctrine did not apply.

He should not have been able to make a profit from their software that he never even purchased himself first hand.

Grumpypants

2. Transfer. You may make a one-time permanent transfer of all your rights to install and use the Software to another individual or legal entity provided that: (a) the Technical Protection Measures used by the Software supports such transfers; (b) you also transfer this License and all copies of the Software; (c) you retain no copies of the Software, upgrades, updates or prior versions; and (d) the receiving party accepts the terms and conditions of this License

Cheers Gizmo its always good when someone backs me up. This bit means you are aloud to trade the game they have no problem with that as long as the second person accepts some limitations to the online aspects as outlined.

Which ive never disagreed with although others seem to think you are restricted from doing that by the law, you aren't.

I don't think its right to then charge the second person for that online access but i never said it was illegal, maybe unethical. If they wanted to put a charge to access the game disk by a second user then that's a separate matter.


And this line about the Auto cad is very important "Autodesk only licenses copies of its software rather than selling them" This is the difference between the two formats. You buy the Autocad licence its in your name and this gives you access to the software, but the licence for a game is the game disk itself and who ever owns it, owns the licence.

jaykhunter

Helix wrote: »

this online pass allows the original...

:rolleyes:

gizmo

Grumpypants wrote: »

Cheers Gizmo its always good when someone backs me up. This bit means you are aloud to trade the game they have no problem with that as long as the second person accepts some limitations to the online aspects as outlined.

Which ive never disagreed with although others seem to think you are restricted from doing that by the law, you aren't.

Well bear in mind this is specifically the EA EULA for Fifa 11. Other EULAs I've read specifically prohibit the transfer of licences in such a manner. I assume EA altering theirs is designed to handle any lawsuits from those who wish to take the issue of charging for the online pass to court and also to reflect their change of policy in discouraging second hand sales via online bonuses i.e. Project Ten Dollar.

As for the legality of the issue, well as many have pointed out, the EULA is legally binding in the US now and I can see it's only a matter of time before it's rolled out elsewhere

On a final note regarding the above EULA, does the sale of said license by the retailer you've traded your copy to not constitute commercial use?

Helix

jaykhunter wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I figured it needed to be big since people are failing to grasp the concept repeatedly

deathrider

Just thinking, I'm not one for renting out games myself (don't think I've rented a game since my old Snes days), but won't the idea of renting a game to test-drive it get a firm kick in the teeth here too?