nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

EA Online Pass

animaal

EA 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*)

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

calex71

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 disconnects

Kiith

I dont really have a problem with this. Developers don't get a penny when Gamestop/Game rip people off by charging €5-€10 less for a pre-owned game. So they have to do something to recoup the loses that they are making. Ideally, pre-owned games should be way cheaper, so the extra €10 isnt going to as much of a problem.

I'm assuming you'll now need to register your copy of a game with your gamer tag?

calex71

Kiith wrote: »

I'm assuming you'll now need to register your copy of a game with your gamer tag?

It'll be a code on the manual you need to tie to the gamer tag, from what I saw there is a 7 day trial period if you don't have the code.

800 points is a bit steep if you are already paying for live :mad:

[Deleted User]

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.

Burning Eclipse

This all goes back (afaik) to Gears of War 2 at the end of 2008. Epic said that they had real problems with the 2nd hand market, and they included a download token for 5 free maps with the game as a way to encourage people to buy it new.

Honestly, I can't say I have much of a problem with this, but I buy >90% of my games new anyway.

gizmo

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.

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.

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

Kiith

gizmo wrote: »

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

I say bring back code wheels!

gizmo

Kiith wrote: »

I say bring back code wheels!

I see your code wheels and raise you dressing Sam N' Max in the clothes which correspond to specific pages in the manual.

animaal

Kiith wrote: »

Developers don't get a penny when Gamestop/Game rip people off by charging €5-€10 less for a pre-owned game. So they have to do something to recoup the loses that they are making.

So Toyota are making a loss when I sell my car, and whoever buys it from me should be making an extra payment to Toyota too?

I agree that shops milk the used game market. But I've given a shop sixty quid for a new game. Why should it matter to EA whether I'm playing it in my house, or whether I've given it to you to play in your house?

Of course, if this new EA model means the games are much cheaper, I'd be more open to it. But I'm not holding my breath.

The next time I'm buying a footy game, I can (a) buy Fifa, and know that it's tied to my console and worthless to be sold on, or (b) buy Pro Evo. I know which I'll be doing.

Burning Eclipse

animaal wrote: »

The next time I'm buying a footy game, I can (a) buy Fifa, and know that it's tied to my console and worthless to be sold on, or (b) buy Pro Evo. I know which I'll be doing.

Just how much worse would Pro Evo have to be before you relent and buy Fifa? For arguments sake, if Fifa11 is a 10/10 stellar experience that redefines footie games and Pro Evo is a 6/10 generic rehash of the genre... which game would you buy?

Helix

a lot of people will be unhappy with it, but you can see why theyre doing it

the second hand market is essentially equal to piracy for publishers and developers, this is their way of trying to get something out of it for their games, rather than earning free money for the likes of gamestop

EGriff

How many people have bought fifa 10 and then traded it in? Fifa is the type of game you keep for the year, and by the time the next one comes out its pretty much worthless as a trade in anyway. Same goes for most sports games.

Though i would worry they'll bring a similar thing in for shooters and other games.... We'll see when the new MOH comes out.

animaal

Burning Eclipse wrote: »

Just how much worse would Pro Evo have to be before you relent and buy Fifa? For arguments sake, if Fifa11 is a 10/10 stellar experience that redefines footie games and Pro Evo is a 6/10 generic rehash of the genre... which game would you buy?

In that situation, if I viewed Fifa as being so good that I'm unlikely to be passing it on, I'd probably go for it. In reality, both franchises are rehashing the genre year after year.

I have Fifa 09. I thought the upgrade from that to Fifa 10 was quite small, and my money would be better spent on a totally different game instead. so I got Modern Warfare 2 (I didn't have MW1). I had since planned on getting Fifa 11, when it comes out. Two years of improvements would proably be fair enough. But not now. I've played Fifa and Pro Evo on the PS3, the PS2, and the PS1 before that. Most of the time, the difference in quality between the franchises generally isn't as big as the reviews indicated.

gizmo

animaal wrote: »

Of course, if this new EA model means the games are much cheaper, I'd be more open to it. But I'm not holding my breath.

Again, it's not EA who should be making their games cheaper, it should be GameStop et al making their second hand prices cheaper.

WolfForager

I find no problem with this at all. When the game is bought new EA/the developer are getting money that they earned. If you buy it used EA don't get a penny for a game they made. 10 euro seems perfectly reasonable.

marco_polo

Helix wrote: »

a lot of people will be unhappy with it, but you can see why theyre doing it

the second hand market is essentially equal to piracy for publishers and developers, this is their way of trying to get something out of it for their games, rather than earning free money for the likes of gamestop

I do have sympathy for game developers however the glaring point that they seem to be missing though is that that there is a absolutely huge market for what consumers percieve to be reasonably price console games (say 30-40 euro).

Drop the launch price, you will sell more new games and as a bonus side effect for publishers it would seriously eat into any possible retailer margins on second hand games (Whose second hand sections are sometimes even bigger than for new titles).

The amount of people I know that hang on for a few weeks to get a game second hand, at a saving of 15-20 euros is unreal. Give them value and they will come.

Chances of a procactive approach like this to the problem are south of 0% though I'd say.

Venom

WolfForager wrote: »

I find no problem with this at all. When the game is bought new EA/the developer are getting money that they earned. If you buy it used EA don't get a penny for a game they made. 10 euro seems perfectly reasonable.

Why should game companies make a profit twice for selling one item tho?

calex71

Venom wrote: »

Why should game companies make a profit twice for selling one item tho?

I totally agree, but............ why should game stop!!!!! and an even larger profit on the used game 2nd time around!!!!! which is why they love pre-orders and don't order much above that in terms of % for new games. There is no good guys here as far as I am feeling.

Fol20

Kiith wrote: »

I dont really have a problem with this. Developers don't get a penny when Gamestop/Game rip people off by charging €5-€10 less for a pre-owned game. So they have to do something to recoup the loses that they are making. Ideally, pre-owned games should be way cheaper, so the extra €10 isnt going to as much of a problem.

I'm assuming you'll now need to register your copy of a game with your gamer tag?

Everyone thinks gamestop are ripping people off..what they earn per unit isnt much

Video game cost break down below
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/episode-111-pach-attack/64278

This is why gamestops main sales comes from a second hand game since most of it is pure profit,while new games only get them a few dollars

WolfForager

Venom wrote: »

Why should game companies make a profit twice for selling one item tho?

Why should Gamestop make a mega profit off used games without the developer seeing any of it? I just don't see why the people who put a year of their lives into a game should get feck all just because johny soandso wants to get a 5 euro cheaper game.

Nevyn

Gods be with the days when a game would go gold, having sold enough for the developers that then it would be realsed at a lesser price for those who can't pay the hot of the presses/must keep up with my mates prices.

cherryghost

EDIT: My bad. The EA forums is a complete mess with the questions some people are asking.

But still, an extra tenner on 360 subs and then paying for play online with the PS3 is a joke

Venom

WolfForager wrote: »

Why should Gamestop make a mega profit off used games without the developer seeing any of it? I just don't see why the people who put a year of their lives into a game should get feck all just because johny soandso wants to get a 5 euro cheaper game.

Gamestop profits are nothing to do with EA or a games developers as both parties have already made their cut on the games sales, and lets be honest the developer is not going to see 1 cent from this Online Pass deal its just pure greed on EA's parts.

Coriolanus

I dont' see a problem with this tbh. It's no different to an artist being now entitled to a share of the re-sale profits of his work.

marco_polo

Nevore wrote: »

I dont' see a problem with this tbh. It's no different to an artist being now entitled to a share of the re-sale profits of his work.

I have no problem with that in principal, however what really bugs me is the way that the industry switches between thinking of games as pure I.P. and as physical entity (ie the disk etc) depending on what suits them best.

The physical medium is apparently of zero signifigance when discussing lost sales to second hand games, however if you damage a disk and go looking for a replacement, all of a sudden the physical medium become an integral part of the game and if you want to keep playing you must buy the game again.

I dislike the double standard TBH.

Coriolanus

marco_polo wrote: »

I have no problem with that in principal, however what really bugs me is the way that the industry switches between thinking of games as pure I.P. and as physical entity (ie the disk etc) depending on what suits them best.

The physical medium is apparently of zero signifigance when discussing lost sales to second hand games, however if you damage a disk and go looking for a replacement, all of a sudden the physical medium become an integral part of the game and if you want to keep playing you must buy the game again.

I dislike the double standard TBH.

Yeah, that's true too. Depends on game company I guess. At least some PC publishers used to let you post off your damaged disc and get a new, charging only a nominal fee. Used to do it all the time when I was a kid.

That's probably the core of the problem. There's no regulation of the interactions between publisher, software, and customer. EA has one policy, Ubisoft another, Valve another etc. You almost have to research the publisher before buying, to know what you might be letting yourself in for.

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

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.

johnmcdnl

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 they

[Deleted User]

animaal wrote: »

The next time I'm buying a footy game, I can (a) buy Fifa, and know that it's tied to my console and worthless to be sold on, or (b) buy Pro Evo. I know which I'll be doing.

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

animaal

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