EA to start charging for online play...

[rudder]

you do pay for it. You pay out the ass to buy the game, then you need to buy the system, then the interwebs. Paying to play on something you already pay for is stupid. That is like if you had a 24 fitness subscription, which is 15 a month for the basic one with unlimited access, then every time you go in you have to pay an extra 15 bucks to use the treadmill, then 15 for the elliptical, 15 for the pool.


Its stupid, and makes no sense So gtfo please.

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.

 

[Gothgar]

if the games are good enough I guess so?

 

[Liet]

"This is an important inflection point in our business because it allows us to accelerate our commitment to enhance premium online services to the entire robust EA SPORTS online community," said EA Sports president Peter Moore.

^^ My favorite part of the article.

"But we're doing this to help YOU!"

hahaha, go fall in a pit, Peter Moore.

 

[Onita]

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.

Care to explain where all these new people playing the games come from?

 

[Golgatha]

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.

If they're giving away a "free" online code for a new game and the new game then becomes a used game, there is still exactly 1 user utilizing their servers in either case. I fail to see how a used game impacts the bottom line of running the servers. Now I completely understand that they see $0 from the resale of the game, but so do booksellers, furniture makers, etc.

 

[golem]

If they're giving away a "free" online code for a new game and the new game then becomes a used game, there is still exactly 1 user utilizing their servers in either case. I fail to see how a used game impacts the bottom line of running the servers. Now I completely understand that they see $0 from the resale of the game, but so do booksellers, furniture makers, etc.

Depends on the way you're looking at it. If the "free" online code goes away with the sale of the used game, number of online users goes from 1 to 0 users. Over time they could reduce the amount they spend on servers just due to attrition.

 

[zebano]

How do they differentiate between a used disc and me taking my copy of madden to a friends house to play with him (I suppose since it's only for online play it doesn't matter)?

 

[crownjules]

If by "perfect" you mean circumventing the First-sale Doctrine consumers have historically enjoyed since 1976, then yes, this is a "perfect" way for them to do it.

Pretty much how I see it. The copyright license covers all the content on the media and is fully transferable under the Copyright Act of 1976. Now EA is saying the portion of the code that gets you online is non-transferable and will cost you $10 to "reactivate" when you purchase a used copy.

I'm no lawyer though and I'm sure EA has consulted with their own before going ahead with this plan. There's obviously some loophole or some way the feel they can reword the software licenses so that it survives scrutiny.

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.

The number of users is remaining constant when a person sells their used copy to another person. The original owner, if adhering to the law, no longer possesses a copy and does not use the servers any more. Only the person who bought the used copy. And this is no different than if the original buyer enjoys the game and holds onto the game and continues to play it. EA sees no additional income in either scenario.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I never have nor I ever will buy a game that requires a monthly fee...

Who said anything about a monthly fee?

 

[Adrenaline]

No Gamestop et al will pay exactly $10 less for the used game from the consumer because it is now worth less, and profits will remain the same on their end. Heck, they'll probably increase because I'm sure the retail sales of the $10 keycode cards will net them some extra profits as well.

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.

Also, I question why this thread is in the PC gaming section. EA Sports abandoned the PC as a viable platform in 2009 or so I believe.

I thought the same thing when I saw this thread in this sub-forum.

 

[golem]

The number of users is remaining constant when a person sells their used copy to another person. The original owner, if adhering to the law, no longer possesses a copy and does not use the servers any more. Only the person who bought the used copy. And this is no different than if the original buyer enjoys the game and holds onto the game and continues to play it. EA sees no additional income in either scenario.

But if you expand it out to all original buyers. Some original owners would stop playing over time and the number players would decrease instead of stay constant, so EA could reduce the amount they spend on upkeep for the servers, bandwidth etc.

I have no idea if the decrease would be big or minuscule, but there would be a decrease.

 

[Adrenaline]

If by "perfect" you mean circumventing the First-sale Doctrine consumers have historically enjoyed since 1976, then yes, this is a "perfect" way for them to do it.

Maybe they consider their online play a bonus and not part of the original "deal" to get this to fly. Their lawyers will come up with something to defend this.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

It would be nice if everyone bought a new copy of said game, but I think many people who pay their $60 upfront do so knowing they will sell it when done and recoup some of that initial $60 that they'll then use towards another new game.

If they couldn't do this, obviously they would just buy less games. So it's not like the used market is a total loss for the developer.

What EA is doing just sounds greedy. Charging for extra DLC not cutting it EA?

 

[Fox5]

That's seriously wrong. Here's why:

- DVD movie is registered and linked to the original buyer. If you want to watch the DVD - you have to enter a code for which the DVD player verifies against a remote server that you are authorized to watch the DVD. If you want to sell the DVD - you can, but the buyer would have to pay a fee to have it registered in their name and go through the same process in order to watch it.

- A hard back book protected by an electronic lock is linked [registered] to the original buyer. Everytime you want to read the book, you have to enter a unique code which is linked to YOUR account. The electronic lock talks to a remote server, verifies the information, and unlocks the book so you can read it. If someone wants to buy your book, then they'd have to pay a fee to re-register your book in their name.

Your primitive idea of ownership is outdated. You can no longer buy anything, except a non-transferable license.

 

[pmv]

That wasn't the original argument.

S/He argued that since s/he paid for the used game, system, and internet he should be allowed to play online. I said this logic is wrong because none of this money went to the publisher so from the view of the publisher, it doesn't matter who else is being paid.

In any case, the game maker sold the physical media and a license to play the game and a non-transferrable right to play online to the original buyer. They can deny access to online play to subsequent buyers if it's stated on the box. Same thing happens with warranties, unless otherwise stated, it only covers the original buyer.

Game makers probably don't make the disc themselves. They probably contract that out to someone else. Anyway that argument doesn't work, the raw material seller sells the materials with the understanding that the disc maker will use those materials to make a disc and sell it w/o further payment later on. In this case, the game maker is explicitly saying you cannot transfer online play.

The 'on line' aspect is clearly both a loop-hole and a grey-area. If the game maker is genuinely providing a 'service' (running servers, say) then they have valid grounds for charging. The way they can make the original charge for using the servers 'non transferable', so the original purchaser doesn't have to pay but later owners do makes it even more of a grey area, in my view, but I think they probably can justify it in this case.

However, it can easily become simply a way of charging for the same product again when it changes hands, especially if its something like UBIsoft's 'totally unnecessary requirement to be on-line even for single player' DRM.

The crurical issue to me is whether the 'on line service' being charged for is truly necessary or if its just a pretext for turning what is really a product into a service. I really don't want to see the day come when your house phones home over the internet and refuses to let you in the front door if you didn't buy the house directly from the original builders, unless you pay them a fee.

 

[tk149]

Does anyone know how much it costs to run a typical game server for a successful game?

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Does anyone know how much it costs to run a typical game server for a successful game?

In this context, it doesn't matter. EA could be bleeding money out the ass maintaining their servers, but that's their own damn fault. They should charge a higher price for the game, have a monthly fee, or do whatever they can to reduce maintenance costs. Tacking on a used game tax is a blatant consumer rights violation.

 

[mmntech]

Looks like consoles only, but you know that if it's remotely successful that it will trickle to PC's soon enough:

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plugged-in/how-playing-madden-online-could-cost-you-10/1398633

Discuss

This was for used titles though, was it not? That's what I originally heard. The game industry is trying to kill the used market. Some ass in an article on DailyTech says they should even be banned, you know, because it's killing the industry. Just like used cars killed the auto industry. Never mind bad business practises and treating your customers like dirt.

 

[Kev]

You don't have any problem that they're trying to get rid of the used gaming market??? It's ridiculous making people pay extra for this.

Only people who buy it used pay extra.

Personally I think this is a great business decision, this is coming from a guy who is completely against 90% of the shit DLC that is out there.

That being said, I don't think it will affect people who buy used much. Usually you need to wait until the next iteration of a game comes out for a significant used price drop. And by that time you won't get much online play anyway, because most of the community will move onto the next version.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Only people who buy it used pay extra.

Personally I think this is a great business decision, this is coming from a guy who is completely against 90% of the shit DLC that is out there.

That being said, I don't think it will affect people who buy used much. Usually you need to wait until the next iteration of a game comes out for a significant used price drop. And by that time you won't get much online play anyway, because most of the community will move onto the next version.

People who buy new and plan to sell later will also pay extra due to $10 worth of the game that cannot be resold. Fortunately this isn't affecting single player games (yet), which typically are the only console games I resell. Like FF13, I paid nearly full price for that garbage but at least I can resell it and recover almost all of what I spent on it.

But I agree with the rest. I got Halo 3 for $20, but no one plays it online.

 

[BladeVenom]

Does anyone know how much it costs to run a typical game server for a successful game?

EA has been ending support for it's older games. Some of them are last years games.

 

[AstroManLuca]

But I agree with the rest. I got Halo 3 for $20, but no one plays it online.

What are you talking about? Halo 3 is still really popular, helped by the fact that ODST's online multiplayer is the same thing.

 

[tk149]

In this context, it doesn't matter. EA could be bleeding money out the ass maintaining their servers, but that's their own damn fault. They should charge a higher price for the game, have a monthly fee, or do whatever they can to reduce maintenance costs. Tacking on a used game tax is a blatant consumer rights violation.

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.

 

[tk149]

EA has been ending support for it's older games. Some of them are last years games.

That is completely despicable. It'd be one thing if they were actually losing money, but they aren't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/technology/12game.html?src=busln

 

[coloumb]

Ok.. I see no problem with this now that I've re-read it.

Basically - the "online" code/fee is included with a new copy - the code is forever gone once you use it. If you sell, trade, barter, or just throw your game at someone, they will have to pay $10 to get a code in order to play on EA's online servers.

Yeah it sucks... but when the company can make the shareholders more money - that's exactly what the company will do. We're just use to playing on "Free" servers no matter where the game came from [new, used, 5-finger discount, borrowed].