EA to start charging for online play...

[CoinOperatedBoy]

I think it does matter. If the costs of maintaining servers is significant, this could be an attempt to keep the price of games at their present level, while planning for the future. But it's EA, so probably not.

I do agree that this is a violation of the First Sale doctrine.

Then the justification does not matter.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

One thing I don't quite get is the fact that there are 4 pages of people complaining about a console only policy in the PC gaming forum.

 

[fantolay]

Games used to cost $49.99 anyway. I feel like the extra 10 I am paying is this extra 10.

 

[Adrenaline]

Games used to cost $49.99 anyway. I feel like the extra 10 I am paying is this extra 10.

I remember SNES games costing $69.99 for the really good ones, Street Fighter 2 and Final Fantasy 3 (VI in Japan) come to mind instantly.

Since Sony and MS did not make any money off their consoles (I do not know if they still lose money or not) this was a way for them to make some money back through game sales by raising prices.

The Wii is a repackaged Gamecube with a little extra in it, so Nintendo has made money off every console sold and Nintendo has been able to keep games at $49.99.

I will not pay more than $49.99 for a pc game unless it is a CE that I REALLY want, and I have only done that once with Diablo 2. I spend way more on a pc than a console.

 

[bullbert]

Lawyers got involved and made it illegal to rent PC games. Why don't they just do the same for Console games? The precedence that was set was something about if the media was copyable then it could not be rented.

An even worse thought would be that the publishers could give away the media for virtually free, and make you pay a monthly license fee even for single player offline games, similar to how professional CAE tools are sold and supported.

Before you tell me to STFU, I would not condone this. I am just wondering were the slimy lawyers have slinked off to... I used to actually rent PC games back in the 1980s (something like 3 days for around 10%-20% new pricing) back before it became illegal and the merchants becoming subject to law enforcement raids. It sure saved me a lot of $$, being able to figure out which were not worth buying. Some were such dogs, they were not even worth playing for the full 3 days. It was back then that I figured out that 90+% of games are not worth the waste of money OR TIME. Of course this was pre-internet so local word-of-mouth was the only way to get honest game reviews, unless you still believe magazine publishers receive no special treatment for good reviews.

Even now, if I know the game is not stellar, I do not waste more than my self-imposed $5 clearance price ceiling to check it out for myself. And even if it gets stellar reviews, I usually just wait for the GOTY edition will all the DLC, add-ons, expansions, and patches in one Hot Deal purchase. Also by then the modding community has even provided more content and bug fixes.

 

[lothar]

Instead of GS giving $30 they could give $20 and then turn around and sell it for $45 and still make their margin of $25. Either way GS will have to make an adjustment, which is what I was hinting at earlier.

No. What you were hinting at earlier was that it's good move for consumers and a loss for Gamestop.
This still wouldn't make a dent in their profits and it's still not a win-win for consumers, which is what I was suggesting earlier.
How does one determine that this is a win-win for consumers when the initial buyers are getting less than what they normally get with used gamers paying less or the same amount, while the corporation entity still posts billions in profit?

The consumers(original/1st time buyer and used buyer) will endup paying the same total amount regardless. This achieves nothing except shifting money around consumers. Again, this won't make a dent in Gamestop's profits. ($60-30+55) would now become ($60-20+45). Gamestop still gets their entire cut...In fact they even have an extra chance to earn additional profit by deciding to do a ($60-20+50) to unsuspecting consumers(to which there are many that foolishly buy the same EA sports games every year with nothing different besides updated rosters and graphics) who think they're getting a steal for $50 compared to the regular $55 "used" price of today.
If Gamestop still makes the same cut they do now, and EA manages to get their own cut with this new idea...Guess who loses? The consumers. The consumers gave EA money while Gamestop loses nothing.


The used game market has been an extremely lucrative source of profit for GameStop. Despite accounting for 26.1% of the company's total sales in Q2 2008, used games sales made up 49.7%, some $234M, of its quarterly profit.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=23396

 

[lothar]

Microsoft, Sony, nintendo all sell hardware for else than it costs to make. They make it up from the profits from game sales. A company hosting servers has an expense to maintain that hardware. If new people keep playing the games through the sale of used discs... then the company begins to lose money or they shut off those servers.... or they charge people when they buy a used game.

Wrong.
Nintendo never sells hardware for less than what it costs to make.

 

[Vrai]

OK PEOPLE READ.

You have to buy PC games new, so whats the problem for paying for Console games at new price?

I'm mean seriously? You guys buy all you PC games new, which have worked this way since like the late 90s. And then when the "CD-key" type stuff hits consoles, you complain?

 

[lothar]

OK PEOPLE READ.

You have to buy PC games new, so whats the problem for paying for Console games at new price?

I'm mean seriously? You guys buy all you PC games new, which have worked this way since like the late 90s. And then when the "CD-key" type stuff hits consoles, you complain?

Do you know how to read???

WWYBYWB?

 

[Cogman]

OK PEOPLE READ.

You have to buy PC games new, so whats the problem for paying for Console games at new price?

I'm mean seriously? You guys buy all you PC games new, which have worked this way since like the late 90s. And then when the "CD-key" type stuff hits consoles, you complain?

Yes, and every bookstore, pawn shop, online auctioning site, classified ads, ect, should be illegal as well. After all, I should be paying everyone that has a hand in making my goods. And damn it, if I try to give them to someone else they too should have to pay everyone in line that made that good + pay me for the initial purchase of the good.

Just because PC games went that route, doesn't mean that I agree with that decision. After you sell something, you don't, and shouldn't expect further payment each time that product changes hands. That's crazy. After it leaves your hands, you don't own it.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Yes, and every bookstore, pawn shop, online auctioning site, classified ads, ect, should be illegal as well. After all, I should be paying everyone that has a hand in making my goods. And damn it, if I try to give them to someone else they too should have to pay everyone in line that made that good + pay me for the initial purchase of the good.

Just because PC games went that route, doesn't mean that I agree with that decision. After you sell something, you don't, and shouldn't expect further payment each time that product changes hands. That's crazy. After it leaves your hands, you don't own it.

When a book or something from a pawnshop requires large amounts of server space and bandwidth all while providing consumers with a persistent online experience then your argument will be valid.

 

[Cogman]

When a book or something from a pawnshop requires large amounts of server space and bandwidth all while providing consumers with a persistent online experience then your argument will be valid.

When all games ever produced require large amounts of server space and bandwidth, all while providing consumers with a persistent online experience, then your argument will be valid.

If the game isn't an MMO (which most aren't) then there is no reason to attach this arbitrary fee. Heck, most servers for most games are 3rd party. The servers that EA or other companies use to host current game data for lobby type services cost them peanuts to run. They already have all the hardware they need to host the matching services for 1000's of games already. It really doesn't take a google sized server farm to do this. The servers they use to host their websites are probably up to the challenge.

So don't make me laugh about the "server space" requirements. You can store tons of very detailed information on 1mb of space. The whole bible fits in that size of space.

No doubt they will do this for their non-online games as well. like the sims 12. Where's the justification there?

 

[coreyb]

I remember SNES games costing $69.99 for the really good ones, Street Fighter 2 and Final Fantasy 3 (VI in Japan) come to mind instantly.

Since Sony and MS did not make any money off their consoles (I do not know if they still lose money or not) this was a way for them to make some money back through game sales by raising prices.

The Wii is a repackaged Gamecube with a little extra in it, so Nintendo has made money off every console sold and Nintendo has been able to keep games at $49.99.

I will not pay more than $49.99 for a pc game unless it is a CE that I REALLY want, and I have only done that once with Diablo 2. I spend way more on a pc than a console.

I remember certain games coming in at $100 Canadian back in the day. I specifically remember buying earthbound and a baseball game for that amount.

 

[Vrai]

Yes, and every bookstore, pawn shop, online auctioning site, classified ads, ect, should be illegal as well. After all, I should be paying everyone that has a hand in making my goods. And damn it, if I try to give them to someone else they too should have to pay everyone in line that made that good + pay me for the initial purchase of the good.

Just because PC games went that route, doesn't mean that I agree with that decision. After you sell something, you don't, and shouldn't expect further payment each time that product changes hands. That's crazy. After it leaves your hands, you don't own it.

Devs have to pay to keep the servers running. There is NOTHING wrong for only letting paying customers play on their servers. They don't have to have multiplayer servers, but you know what? They do.

 

[Cogman]

Devs have to pay to keep the servers running. There is NOTHING wrong for only letting paying customers play on their servers. They don't have to have multiplayer servers, but you know what? They do.

That is a cost that is going to be completely covered by the initial purchasing price. And as I pointed out earlier, which you so willfully neglected, the amount of data/bandwidth, and processing power that they use for hosting a list of active games (which is the full extent of most game producers interaction with their online games) amounts to almost nothing. They already have the hardware, it hosts their massive webservers.

Players for the most part, don't "play on their servers." they play on each others machines. The servers primary function is generally the equivalent to that of a phonebook.

Where they do play on the servers, and the servers need to be beefier, they are already being charge. MMOs, and console game server costs are covered by a subscription based fee. You ever wonder what your money is going to in for an XBox live subscription? That.

Even if that was the point for this model, Sporadic payments from second hand sales is a TERRIBLE way to establish an income to fund server operation. Severs have a constant steady fee, so to pay for that, you need a constant, steady, income. What if people are unwilling to pay the fee, and hence don't buy the game second hand? Even if the game was popular when it was released, all the sudden the funds would go away for server maintainability. Would you be willing to start shelling out more money to play a game that you primarily play on your lan just so you can still use its networking capabilities (even though you are getting nothing new).

 

[Golgatha]

Still odd that this is in the PC gaming section, but I'll throw this out there anyway.

I'd love to see EA put the new games out for $50 and then have Online codes for sale for $10 right next to the games. I might bite for Madden, but for Tiger Woods, etc., I couldn't care less about the Online functionality.

 

[ChickenShwarma]

Since the used gaming scene is small enough, I doubt this new business will effect the PC side of gaming at all.

However, I'm not a fan of this new business model on the console side, because it simply makes gaming a little more complex. I like my console gaming to be simple. Even when I buy the games new, I don't like the process of putting in codes.

Also, I imagine those who buy used may get confused once they buy the product and try to play it only to find out they have to shell out more money to actually play online. Who's responsibility will it be to communicate to the gamers regarding this new payment model? EA, or retailer? Will it say on the box somewhere that you'll have to play for online service as a 2nd owner of the game?

I think it's a mess.

 

[ChickenShwarma]

Looks like Ubisoft may follow EA's model...

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6262941.html?tag=latestheadlines%3Btitle;1

 

[crownjules]

Yeah, this is a console-centric topic and I do the majority of my gaming on my PC. I'm just curious how this is going to effect rentals because I basically do all my console gaming through Gamefly. Very rarely do I purchase a console title these days.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Still odd that this is in the PC gaming section, but I'll throw this out there anyway.

I'd love to see EA put the new games out for $50 and then have Online codes for sale for $10 right next to the games. I might bite for Madden, but for Tiger Woods, etc., I couldn't care less about the Online functionality.

I'd love this since I don't play sports games online, but they'd never do it. Better to charge you whether you want it or not and then automatically decrease the value if you try to resell it (well unless you don't enter the code, and even then good luck getting an extra $10 for a used sports game).