EA - project 10 dollars

[Zargon]

EA got their act together on the PC side.

when did that happen??

 

[mugs]

It's becoming that way with the video game industry. I don't mind DLC at all. I see them as bite sized expansion packs. I don't even mind the day one DLC that bioware puts out, because I understand the complexities of developing these addons. What, again, I don't appreciate is when game companies put said DLC on the disc, and then charges you for it.

Wait - you object to DLC that comes on the disc, but you don't mind release-day content that you have to download? So if they just took it off the disc, you'd be ok with it? Either way you're not going to get the content for free, but you would prefer to spend time downloading it and consume space on your hard drive?

 

[Zargon]

Wait - you object to DLC that comes on the disc, but you don't mind release-day content that you have to download? So if they just took it off the disc, you'd be ok with it? Either way you're not going to get the content for free, but you would prefer to spend time downloading it and consume space on your hard drive?

no he doesnt like that they are charging you use content that came on the disc you paid for ala turning off multi when its resold and making that person then buy it even though it came with the game originally

 

[fatpat268]

Wait - you object to DLC that comes on the disc, but you don't mind release-day content that you have to download? So if they just took it off the disc, you'd be ok with it? Either way you're not going to get the content for free, but you would prefer to spend time downloading it and consume space on your hard drive?

There's a difference.

There's two types of day one DLCs.

1. The dlc that is made after development of the game is done and is waiting to be shipped. This does not get on the disc because it was developed AFTER the rest of the game.

2. The dlc that is made during the primary development of the game and included on the disc.

 

[zerocool84]

EA's project ten dollar is actually a pretty good idea, provided it adds content that's non-essential to the game. Mass Effect 2's cerberus network was a prime example of that. It added some various DLCs like characters, a mission, outfits, and some weapons, none of which significantly adds to the core game. However, the online component of a sports game is pretty significant, and to hold that mode hostage from used games is ridiculous. The project ten dollar for sports games should be stuff like extra uniforms, golf courses, football stadiums, etc.

but that's not what it is

It's simple if you buy the game used, you have to pay $10 extra to play multi-player. No extra content that no one else is getting just the same multi-player that everyone else has. It's retarded. One of the reasons people like consoles gaming more than PC is cus they don't have to deal with crap like this and like to be able to sell their games after they pass them or get tired of them.

 

[blurredvision]

The way I see it, purchasers of a new shrink-wrapped copy will not gain or lose anything. Purchasers of a used copy get less, but why should EA give a fuck? EA is just trying to nab a little piece of the used game market, that's all. If anything, EA is doing less than what Gamestop is doing. Gamestop buys a brand new game (let's say less than a month old) for $25-$30, but attempts to resell at $55. EA just wants $10, Gamestop wants $25 or more. Piss-poor comparison, but whatever.

When I sit down and think about it, I honestly don't have any problem with this at all.

 

[Terzo]

The way I see it, purchasers of a new shrink-wrapped copy will not gain or lose anything. Purchasers of a used copy get less, but why should EA give a fuck? EA is just trying to nab a little piece of the used game market, that's all. If anything, EA is doing less than what Gamestop is doing. Gamestop buys a brand new game (let's say less than a month old) for $25-$30, but attempts to resell at $55. EA just wants $10, Gamestop wants $25 or more. Piss-poor comparison, but whatever.

When I sit down and think about it, I honestly don't have any problem with this at all.

The problem is this is in addition to the used game price. As a consumer I doubt you'll benefit. If Gamestop were to lower their used game price for Madden (I doubt it), you'd have to make up the difference with this $10 fee. If Gamestop doesn't lower their prices (quite plausible), then you pay $55 and $10 more if you want the online access.

 

[zerocool84]

The problem is this is in addition to the used game price. As a consumer I doubt you'll benefit. If Gamestop were to lower their used game price for Madden (I doubt it), you'd have to make up the difference with this $10 fee. If Gamestop doesn't lower their prices (quite plausible), then you pay $55 and $10 more if you want the online access.

What makes this even worse is the rental game market (Gamefly, Blockbuster, etc). Are you going to have to pay $10 every time you rent an EA game and want to play online???

 

[Terzo]

What makes this even worse is the rental game market (Gamefly, Blockbuster, etc). Are you going to have to pay $10 every time you rent an EA game and want to play online???

Yes, this problem has been mentioned. I don't know whether this means gamefly will stop carrying EA titles that don't include the online access, or work out a special deal to get codes for their customers.

 

[xSauronx]

but that's not what it is

It's simple if you buy the game used, you have to pay $10 extra to play multi-player. No extra content that no one else is getting just the same multi-player that everyone else has. It's retarded. One of the reasons people like consoles gaming more than PC is cus they don't have to deal with crap like this and like to be able to sell their games after they pass them or get tired of them.

this. i sold my video card not long ago and got a ps3 because DRM and other hassles from pc game makers irked the bejesus fuck out of me, and i got tired of being treated like crap after I had already paid for my games...none of my friends ever bitch about their ps3.

meh, if enough places do this ill eventually say fuck it and just play card games.

 

[Zargon]

The way I see it, purchasers of a new shrink-wrapped copy will not gain or lose anything. Purchasers of a used copy get less, but why should EA give a fuck? EA is just trying to nab a little piece of the used game market, that's all. If anything, EA is doing less than what Gamestop is doing. Gamestop buys a brand new game (let's say less than a month old) for $25-$30, but attempts to resell at $55. EA just wants $10, Gamestop wants $25 or more. Piss-poor comparison, but whatever.

When I sit down and think about it, I honestly don't have any problem with this at all.

they already got the money when it was purchased. they are getting greedy.

soon they will want subsciptions to play their games

 

[PieIsAwesome]

The way I see it, purchasers of a new shrink-wrapped copy will not gain or lose anything. Purchasers of a used copy get less, but why should EA give a fuck? EA is just trying to nab a little piece of the used game market, that's all. If anything, EA is doing less than what Gamestop is doing. Gamestop buys a brand new game (let's say less than a month old) for $25-$30, but attempts to resell at $55. EA just wants $10, Gamestop wants $25 or more. Piss-poor comparison, but whatever.

When I sit down and think about it, I honestly don't have any problem with this at all.

Like I mentioned before, purchasers of new games do lose when it comes time to resell because there is a significant, consumable part of the game that cannot be resold. This will hurt the resale value of a game with the multiplayer registration already used.

The only reason I have a console is to avoid crap like this, and I can buy cheaper used games and resell those that I get tired of or that suck. Might as well stick to the PC versions, at least there are DRM hacks and work-arounds, private servers, and steam sales.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

they already got the money when it was purchased. they are getting greedy.

soon they will want subsciptions to play their games

They are not greedy. In fact, this should be extended to all items. Every time you resell your car you should give 20% back to the manufacturer.

 

[blurredvision]

The problem is this is in addition to the used game price. As a consumer I doubt you'll benefit. If Gamestop were to lower their used game price for Madden (I doubt it), you'd have to make up the difference with this $10 fee. If Gamestop doesn't lower their prices (quite plausible), then you pay $55 and $10 more if you want the online access.

I'm aware of this, but that's not my point. My comparison was horrible, though, so I won't bother to try and explain it. My opinion is that I don't really blame EA for giving it a try and seeing how it works out for them. If they are going to pay the money for upkeep on online servers, then I don't blame them for wanting a bit of cash from these used game buyers who, to EA, are using their servers for "free" (EA didn't get any money from them).

 

[DivideBYZero]

This has essentially already started, has it not? My PS3 copy of BF:BC2 had a VIP pass in it. It was to access extra MP maps. If you didn't use it you only had something like 3 MP maps and essentially couldn't join 70% of the games running.

 

[mugs]

There's a difference.

There's two types of day one DLCs.

1. The dlc that is made after development of the game is done and is waiting to be shipped. This does not get on the disc because it was developed AFTER the rest of the game.

2. The dlc that is made during the primary development of the game and included on the disc.

Even if it is just available for download on day one, it was probably developed during the development of the game and ready before the discs were manufactured. The question you have to ask is if there was not the possibility of selling that content after release, would it have been developed at all? In some cases, probably yes - i.e. alternate uniforms in sports games and multiplayer. But a lot of DLC, even DLC that comes on the disc, never would have existed if they weren't able to sell it, because obviously the game will sell without it.

 

[Golgatha]

Hopefully, this lowers prices on used EA sports games. I maybe pick a couple up. I've always enjoyed FIFA (at least a few years ago), but I never felt it worth the full retail price. Maybe now I can get a used copy for the cheap. Since I wouldn't play it online anyway, no loss for me.

Unfortunately, it will lower resale values for the person who paid full price for the game in the first place. On the used side, once someone gives up the game to Gamestop, etc., they are no longer utilizing the Online portion of the game and hence the load on EA's servers is a net zero increase in utilization. This is just a dick move to put more of the gamer's money into EA's pockets. Nothing new here so move along.

I do wonder if they'll pro-rate the $10 charge for their planned server shutdown date when the game is barely 1 year old? I also wonder how long it will take for EA Sports to start charging a monthly subscription fee for Online play? I'm thinking next year...maybe two?

 

[Golgatha]

This has essentially already started, has it not? My PS3 copy of BF:BC2 had a VIP pass in it. It was to access extra MP maps. If you didn't use it you only had something like 3 MP maps and essentially couldn't join 70% of the games running.

Yeah, my PC copy had the same thing, but it's not like used PC games are worth anything anymore right? I think the map pack is available for $10 or $15 extra though.

 

[Golgatha]

I'm aware of this, but that's not my point. My comparison was horrible, though, so I won't bother to try and explain it. My opinion is that I don't really blame EA for giving it a try and seeing how it works out for them. If they are going to pay the money for upkeep on online servers, then I don't blame them for wanting a bit of cash from these used game buyers who, to EA, are using their servers for "free" (EA didn't get any money from them).

EA received money from the original sale and the net load on their servers is zero when ownership of the game is transferred via a used game sale.

This is a money grab by means of online account registration plain and simple. Basically it's socially engineered DRM designed to do what DRM is always meant to do...to more effectively fleece the sheeple.

 

[Zargon]

They are not greedy. In fact, this should be extended to all items. Every time you resell your car you should give 20% back to the manufacturer.

rofl

good point comrade

 

[Golgatha]

this. i sold my video card not long ago and got a ps3 because DRM and other hassles from pc game makers irked the bejesus fuck out of me, and i got tired of being treated like crap after I had already paid for my games...none of my friends ever bitch about their ps3.

meh, if enough places do this ill eventually say fuck it and just play card games.

I find it funny when us "PC gamers" get chastised for speaking out against DRM. DRM was invented to allow IP producers to have more and more control over their products after the sale, which basically means consumers own less and less of the actual thing they are buying (not renting, borrowing under certain terms, or licensing...buying). This allows big business to exploit their customers whether it be on a PC, console, or consumer electronic device.

 

[blurredvision]

EA received money from the original sale and the net load on their servers is zero when ownership of the game is transferred via a used game sale.

This is a money grab by means of online account registration plain and simple. Basically it's socially engineered DRM designed to do what DRM is always meant to do...to more effectively fleece the sheeple.

Of course it's a money grab, they are a for-profit company! Every time a used copy of their game is sold, they see absolutely $0 from it. Do they want a cut? Hell yes they do. This $10 fee will either make a person buy the game new (they'll get money), pay the $10 to play online (they'll get money), or not buy the game at all (less server usage, lower costs, most likely no noticable hit on the online community with other users).

You guys give EA shit, but it's a smart move on their end. They could not care less about you buying used games, because they never see a dime from it. This will change that so they'll see at least some extra revenue.

I like how you try to be all deep with your hate on DRM, "fleecing the sheeple" and all that shit, but guess what? Every company in this capitalist economy wants your money. The secret? You don't have to give it to them. Nobody is fleecing anyone. EA wants a cut of their games being sold on the used market, this is something they can control. Let them. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

 

[artemicion]

Of course it's a money grab, they are a for-profit company! Every time a used copy of their game is sold, they see absolutely $0 from it. Do they want a cut? Hell yes they do. This $10 fee will either make a person buy the game new (they'll get money), pay the $10 to play online (they'll get money), or not buy the game at all (less server usage, lower costs, most likely no noticable hit on the online community with other users).

You guys give EA shit, but it's a smart move on their end. They could not care less about you buying used games, because they never see a dime from it. This will change that so they'll see at least some extra revenue.

I like how you try to be all deep with your hate on DRM, "fleecing the sheeple" and all that shit, but guess what? Every company in this capitalist economy wants your money. The secret? You don't have to give it to them. Nobody is fleecing anyone. EA wants a cut of their games being sold on the used market, this is something they can control. Let them. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

+1

 

[Terzo]

I'm aware of this, but that's not my point. My comparison was horrible, though, so I won't bother to try and explain it. My opinion is that I don't really blame EA for giving it a try and seeing how it works out for them. If they are going to pay the money for upkeep on online servers, then I don't blame them for wanting a bit of cash from these used game buyers who, to EA, are using their servers for "free" (EA didn't get any money from them).

Oh, they're certainly free to do what they wish, but it does give of a feeling of being nickled and dimed. Granted this wont affect me as I don't play sport games, but as a consumer I don't see any good coming of it.

 

[Golgatha]

Of course it's a money grab, they are a for-profit company! Every time a used copy of their game is sold, they see absolutely $0 from it. Do they want a cut? Hell yes they do. This $10 fee will either make a person buy the game new (they'll get money), pay the $10 to play online (they'll get money), or not buy the game at all (less server usage, lower costs, most likely no noticable hit on the online community with other users).

You guys give EA shit, but it's a smart move on their end. They could not care less about you buying used games, because they never see a dime from it. This will change that so they'll see at least some extra revenue.

I like how you try to be all deep with your hate on DRM, "fleecing the sheeple" and all that shit, but guess what? Every company in this capitalist economy wants your money. The secret? You don't have to give it to them. Nobody is fleecing anyone. EA wants a cut of their games being sold on the used market, this is something they can control. Let them. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

My DRM hate isn't deep at all or hard to understand. EA is using DRM to stomp all over the First-sale Doctrine, which allows a legal purchaser of a copyrighted work to sell the ENTIRE product without EA's permission. EA is using DRM to control the transfer of the Online portion of the product, thereby circumventing the First-sale Doctrine the consumer has enjoyed for decades now. IMO they are in violation of the Copyright Act of 1976 and should be taken to court over it.

Let them.

Spoken like a true sheeple. I want to enjoy the products put out by EA and the like, but I'm also vocal against them when they trample over everyone's consumer rights. Also, the argument of "if you don't like it, don't buy it", holds very little weight with me because enough people will buy into it to make it profitable. The vocal minority needs to raise hell to make sure EA doesn't continue down this sewage pipe for any meaningful change to come about.