Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

n0t_u wrote:I guess this system helps mostly against piracy, not used games.

This system does nothing to combat piracy. Pirates just set up private networks for MP. EDIT: Besides. Piracy of console games isn't that much. It's going on in China and pretty much no where else afaik.

This one isn't even a multiplayer game, online access is only needed for paying customers, cause of the DRM. So pirates are actually getting a *better product* as a result of what EA is doing.

I'm all for it, it hurts Gamestop, which is a plague upon the gaming industry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:

n0t_u wrote:I guess this system helps mostly against piracy, not used games.

This system does nothing to combat piracy. Pirates just set up private networks for MP. EDIT: Besides. Piracy of console games isn't that much. It's going on in China and pretty much no where else afaik.

Oddly enough, there were more pirated copies of Homefront on the Xbox than on the PC.

The $10 for online access is a double edged sword imo.

Me and my bro both use the same Xbox 360, just different profiles.

Now take Fifa 11, if bought new then it is only supplied with 1 online pass which means the other would need to buy a pass just to get online and theres no pre-owned game in the mix.

Its just by sheer luck that I hate Fifa 11 online so i dont need to worry about the $10 charge, communities for games like Black Ops and the like would probly have a hissy fit if they needed to pay $10 to play online because a sibling used the online code. (Could hopefully filter out all the children on the servers).

Tbh i would probly pay the $10 if i could get say a weeks free online play to see if its actually any good.

Slarg232 wrote:They work on a product, you buy it new, they don't get a single cent of it. I think these things are totally justified, because how many of you guys would work for two years without getting payed?

They do get paid. They sell their game and make money. They then want to be paid again for the same product when another consumer is not impressed enough by the game that they are prepared to wait a month or two and buy it second hand.

The people in the thread are also annoyed by schemes in which content is obviously chopped out of the original game and then sold separately to surreptitiously bump up the price.

@ Johnscott10: I agree that the system would be annoying for you, but I think there might be questions of the legality of sharing games anyway...

Slarg232 wrote:Guys, guys, GUYS!

If you buy the game NEW, for $60, you don't spend a single cent, NOT. ONE. PENNY. extra in order to play online with these passes. This is only if you buy a game USED for less, because the Game Companies do not get anything from those sales.

They work on a product, you buy it new, they don't get a single cent of it. I think these things are totally justified, because how many of you guys would work for two years without getting payed?

Okay so if Gamestop today started selling only new games then what would you suggest that they do with their profit? They are choosing to invest the money made from selling the game new for the game manufacturer into the buying of used games.

When Wal-Mart sells a new game, they take their money and invest it is something else. Are you saying Gamestop should take their profit and invest it in something else as well? In other words, "we don't care what you do with the money you made from selling our product, just don't use it to re-buy the product and sell it again."

Gamestop is a company as well, and they have to make money in their own way or they cease to exist. The economics of the issue seem a little unfair. Gamestop is making their money their way and the game company is making their profit in their way. If the game company truly wants Gamestop to stop selling used games, perhaps they should sell their new games to gamestop cheaper so Gamestop can make a fair profit?

All I see is Poor EA games. What about Poor Gamestop? What about Poor Me? I am not making any money off of the issue. Where is my percentage as a consumer? If I don't think a game is worth $60.00 then I should be able to sell it and get a partial return of my investment. Gamestop and Ebay provide me with the means of making at least some money off of my purchased game.

When I buy a new car am I supposed to keep it for my entire life, even when it no longer functions? If I sell it used a few years later and make back some of my money isn't this fair? The car company makes less money this way because I took the potential sell from one of their customers who could have bought a new car.

I am probably full of crap, because I have never studied economics. I just know that if I invest money in something, I should be able to get a return investment. Perhaps EA games and the rest should sell their own games from now on? They have benefited from the likes of Best Buy, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Gamestop, and Software Etc. for far too long.

Everyone wants a piece of the pie. They just get bent out of shape when someone wants some of the pie as well.

Only a moron would sell their game to Gamestop at the prices Gamestop asks for... They'll buy a used game for ten bucks and then sell it for fourty or fifty. Or buy a used PS3 for 90 and resell it for 300. You'd be better off just selling it on ebay or something...

And of course they've benefited from best buy etc, but so have best buy benefited from selling the games. The retailers make profits off of selling new products too. It's just that they aren't quite as able to rip people off as they are if they resell used games bought from idiots who have no sense of value.

Melissia wrote:Only a moron would sell their game to Gamestop at the prices Gamestop asks for... They'll buy a used game for ten bucks and then sell it for fourty or fifty. Or buy a used PS3 for 90 and resell it for 300. You'd be better off just selling it on ebay or something...

And of course they've benefited from best buy etc, but so have best buy benefited from selling the games. The retailers make profits off of selling new products too. It's just that they aren't quite as able to rip people off as they are if they resell used games bought from idiots who have no sense of value.

Your right Ebay is the way to go. If I sell a newer game that is the only way I will sell it. What does Gamestop give anyways? $24.00 max?


If I sell a game it is usually about 10-15 years after it has came out and moved into the Nostalgia phase. I usually get $100.00 - $150.00 out of each game that I sell like this. Of course the games I am selling are popular ones and all classics. Don't expect to get $150.00 out of Madden 96 this year.

Lord Scythican wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:Guys, guys, GUYS!

If you buy the game NEW, for $60, you don't spend a single cent, NOT. ONE. PENNY. extra in order to play online with these passes. This is only if you buy a game USED for less, because the Game Companies do not get anything from those sales.

They work on a product, you buy it new, they don't get a single cent of it. I think these things are totally justified, because how many of you guys would work for two years without getting payed?

Okay so if Gamestop today started selling only new games then what would you suggest that they do with their profit? They are choosing to invest the money made from selling the game new for the game manufacturer into the buying of used games.

When Wal-Mart sells a new game, they take their money and invest it is something else. Are you saying Gamestop should take their profit and invest it in something else as well? In other words, "we don't care what you do with the money you made from selling our product, just don't use it to re-buy the product and sell it again."

Gamestop is a company as well, and they have to make money in their own way or they cease to exist. The economics of the issue seem a little unfair. Gamestop is making their money their way and the game company is making their profit in their way. If the game company truly wants Gamestop to stop selling used games, perhaps they should sell their new games to gamestop cheaper so Gamestop can make a fair profit?

All I see is Poor EA games. What about Poor Gamestop? What about Poor Me? I am not making any money off of the issue. Where is my percentage as a consumer? If I don't think a game is worth $60.00 then I should be able to sell it and get a partial return of my investment. Gamestop and Ebay provide me with the means of making at least some money off of my purchased game.

When I buy a new car am I supposed to keep it for my entire life, even when it no longer functions? If I sell it used a few years later and make back some of my money isn't this fair? The car company makes less money this way because I took the potential sell from one of their customers who could have bought a new car.

I am probably full of crap, because I have never studied economics. I just know that if I invest money in something, I should be able to get a return investment. Perhaps EA games and the rest should sell their own games from now on? They have benefited from the likes of Best Buy, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Gamestop, and Software Etc. for far too long.

Everyone wants a piece of the pie. They just get bent out of shape when someone wants some of the pie as well.

Firstly, a video game is a source of entertainment, or rather a luxury. A Car is pretty much needed, depending on where you live.

Also, this isn't about EA, not fully anyway. Mortal Kombat has those codes, and they are from Warner Brothers, nothing to do with EA.

As for "poor you!", it's called Buyer Beware for a reason. Do research on the game you want to buy, even if it means not buying it when the game first comes out. Wait for the bargain bin. Game consoles, and the games that you play on them, are luxuries; you don't need them to function.

Gamestop makes money off of new game sales, they just don't get as much as when they make Used game sales.

There is NOTHING stopping you from buying a Used game for $20. You can still do that. Just be prepared to buy a Pass for $10. Last I checked $30 is still cheaper than $60.

Lord Scythican wrote:If I sell a game it is usually about 10-15 years after it has came out and moved into the Nostalgia phase. I usually get $100.00 - $150.00 out of each game that I sell like this. Of course the games I am selling are popular ones and all classics. Don't expect to get $150.00 out of Madden 96 this year.

Or any madden game for that matter.

Lord Scythican wrote:

Melissia wrote:If I sell a game it is usually about 10-15 years after it has came out and moved into the Nostalgia phase. I usually get $100.00 - $150.00 out of each game that I sell like this. Of course the games I am selling are popular ones and all classics. Don't expect to get $150.00 out of Madden 96 this year.

This is then an example of selling something only hardcore gamers/collecters would ever be interested in, and at that point the Online would be dead for the game anyway. Those kind of sales will be unaffected.

Slarg232 wrote:
As for "poor you!", it's called Buyer Beware for a reason. Do research on the game you want to buy, even if it means not buying it when the game first comes out. Wait for the bargain bin. Game consoles, and the games that you play on them, are luxuries; you don't need them to function.

Gamestop makes money off of new game sales, they just don't get as much as when they make Used game sales.

There is NOTHING stopping you from buying a Used game for $20. You can still do that. Just be prepared to buy a Pass for $10. Last I checked $30 is still cheaper than $60.

What about buying new games that are supposed to be good but end up being crap when they come out?

I wanted to pay $60.00 for Final Fantasy XIII. It turned out to be a horrible game. If it was used, I would have bought it for $55.00 the week it came out, took it back and traded it for something better. Instead I bought it new, and sold it for $45.00. Some other poor SOB bought it for $55.00 used.

Why do I have to wait until the used game is $20.00 to make the purchase more appropriate? I have to wait up to a year to buy it that cheap and not hurt the game manufacturer's pockets? Isn't this worse, since hardly anyone is making profit from the used game at that point?

If you buy a game new, without trying it out first, that's your choice.

Your responsibility.

I bought WoW and found out that it was a boring festival of mediocrity, I certainly regretted it, but it was my choice to buy it.

Slarg232 wrote:

As for "poor you!", it's called Buyer Beware for a reason. Do research on the game you want to buy, even if it means not buying it when the game first comes out. Wait for the bargain bin. Game consoles, and the games that you play on them, are luxuries; you don't need them to function.

Gamestop makes money off of new game sales, they just don't get as much as when they make Used game sales.

There is NOTHING stopping you from buying a Used game for $20. You can still do that. Just be prepared to buy a Pass for $10. Last I checked $30 is still cheaper than $60.

The primary victim isn't the people who buy used, its the people who buy new and then sell when they finish the game, and won't be able to get as good of a price as a result of EAs actions.

They don't get a good price anyway if they sell to gamestop. Gamestop has been ripping off people selling games to it for years now.

Melissia wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:

n0t_u wrote:I guess this system helps mostly against piracy, not used games.

This system does nothing to combat piracy. Pirates just set up private networks for MP. EDIT: Besides. Piracy of console games isn't that much. It's going on in China and pretty much no where else afaik.

Oddly enough, there were more pirated copies of Homefront on the Xbox than on the PC.

That's certainly new. Still. These cards won't stop piracy. Pirates will always find ways around any system you make to stop them, usually by disconnecting the game from any system you put in place and inserting it into their own. The question is how much will you make legal consumers suffer in your valiant yet futile crusade against the pirates?

EDIT: A little off topic.

I don't have a problem with the cards. I usually buy my games new anyway. I don't really have a problem with Game Stops buyback policies. If you don't really care how much money you get back from a game you don't play anymore, it's a convenient way to make a few bucks and clear off your game self of junk you don't use anymore. If you want to make a good bit back, use Ebay. If you don't care Game Stop works fine.

Oh no, it won't stop pirates, but that's not its purpose anyway.

Soup and a roll wrote:
@ Johnscott10: I agree that the system would be annoying for you, but I think there might be questions of the legality of sharing games anyway...

There are legality issues, but how often are they goin to arise in court?? Almost none, because when you buy a game, DVD or CD you are buying a lisence only you have to use said media so sharing it with a household should impose legality issues, but i highly doubt that would happen.

But this also means that they don't really have any obligation to serve your sharing needs.

Melissia wrote:But this also means that they don't really have any obligation to serve your sharing needs.

Im not saying they do, im just saying that some people will find it as an annoyance.

And the company finds it an annoyance to not get its deserved profits...

Melissia wrote:And the company finds it an annoyance to not get its deserved profits...

I highly doubt that a company will notice missing £30 or so compared to the millions they already have.

johnscott10 wrote:

Melissia wrote:And the company finds it an annoyance to not get its deserved profits...

I highly doubt that a company will notice missing £30 or so compared to the millions they already have.

Actually, they will;

It costs millions, if not billions, to make a video game. The only way to make that money up is by sales. If they lose out on a consumer buying a copy, they lose out $60 to pay for the game they just made. Now say 1,000 people buy Used. That's $60,000 they just didn't make. And in all actuallity, they are NOT making all $60 back per sale; money has to be given to Microsoft/Sony for allowing them to put their game on their console, have to pay Gamestop/the seller, all that sort of jazz.

Also, most publishers use Sales Figures to decide on what gets a sequel and how much money they will put into that Sequel. So if those 1,000 people don't buy it, that's alot worse of a chart, alot less money going towards the sequel, and a less quality game.

johnscott10 wrote:

Soup and a roll wrote:
@ Johnscott10: I agree that the system would be annoying for you, but I think there might be questions of the legality of sharing games anyway...

There are legality issues, but how often are they goin to arise in court?? Almost none, because when you buy a game, DVD or CD you are buying a lisence only you have to use said media so sharing it with a household should impose legality issues, but i highly doubt that would happen.

Right of first sale. You have a legal right to lend your copyrighted material to somebody else.

Slarg232 wrote:

johnscott10 wrote:

Melissia wrote:And the company finds it an annoyance to not get its deserved profits...

I highly doubt that a company will notice missing £30 or so compared to the millions they already have.

Actually, they will;

It costs millions, if not billions, to make a video game. The only way to make that money up is by sales. If they lose out on a consumer buying a copy, they lose out $60 to pay for the game they just made. Now say 1,000 people buy Used. That's $60,000 they just didn't make. And in all actuallity, they are NOT making all $60 back per sale; money has to be given to Microsoft/Sony for allowing them to put their game on their console, have to pay Gamestop/the seller, all that sort of jazz.

Also, most publishers use Sales Figures to decide on what gets a sequel and how much money they will put into that Sequel. So if those 1,000 people don't buy it, that's alot worse of a chart, alot less money going towards the sequel, and a less quality game.

Indeed. So in the end, as far as I'm concerned-- me being a customer who almost always buys games new (most of my games are PC games anyway), the online pass thing is beneficial to me because it means that the company will get a little bit of money from people who otherwise would give them nothing (renters and used game buyers).

I'm thinking of THQ's online pass primarily, not EA's thing. Not really liking the design of EA's passes.

Requia wrote:I cannot express my opinion on this and stay within the site rules.

This ^




Used game sales account for a nice chunk of retailers profits, ESPECIALLY the mom and pop game stores who make a chunk of revenue from used titles. EA belongs to vivendi. Look them up, they are not going to go broke anytime soon, this is a greedy ploy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Scythican wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:Guys, guys, GUYS!

If you buy the game NEW, for $60, you don't spend a single cent, NOT. ONE. PENNY. extra in order to play online with these passes. This is only if you buy a game USED for less, because the Game Companies do not get anything from those sales.

They work on a product, you buy it new, they don't get a single cent of it. I think these things are totally justified, because how many of you guys would work for two years without getting payed?

Okay so if Gamestop today started selling only new games then what would you suggest that they do with their profit? They are choosing to invest the money made from selling the game new for the game manufacturer into the buying of used games.

When Wal-Mart sells a new game, they take their money and invest it is something else. Are you saying Gamestop should take their profit and invest it in something else as well? In other words, "we don't care what you do with the money you made from selling our product, just don't use it to re-buy the product and sell it again."

Gamestop is a company as well, and they have to make money in their own way or they cease to exist. The economics of the issue seem a little unfair. Gamestop is making their money their way and the game company is making their profit in their way. If the game company truly wants Gamestop to stop selling used games, perhaps they should sell their new games to gamestop cheaper so Gamestop can make a fair profit?

All I see is Poor EA games. What about Poor Gamestop? What about Poor Me? I am not making any money off of the issue. Where is my percentage as a consumer? If I don't think a game is worth $60.00 then I should be able to sell it and get a partial return of my investment. Gamestop and Ebay provide me with the means of making at least some money off of my purchased game.

When I buy a new car am I supposed to keep it for my entire life, even when it no longer functions? If I sell it used a few years later and make back some of my money isn't this fair? The car company makes less money this way because I took the potential sell from one of their customers who could have bought a new car.

I am probably full of crap, because I have never studied economics. I just know that if I invest money in something, I should be able to get a return investment. Perhaps EA games and the rest should sell their own games from now on? They have benefited from the likes of Best Buy, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Gamestop, and Software Etc. for far too long.

Everyone wants a piece of the pie. They just get bent out of shape when someone wants some of the pie as well.

You are correct, believe me. With most game titles unfinished and DLC being released day one with sub par dlc down the road that people buy anyway that title becomes a 70-90 dollar game instead of 60. These companies fail to see that if someone new buys their used title, after someone has already bought their dlc and traded it in, this new consumer will probably ALSO purchase said dlc for whatever the cost. however this is not enough and they require an additional 10 dollars from your pocket...

And once again, I see no problem with THQ's online pass.

For Homefront, you aren't allowed to progress past level five unless you purchased new (and thus have an unused code with the game) or an online pass purchased if you have a used or rental copy. You have full access to single player, and full access to multiplayer, you just can't unlock anything past level five.

The multiplayer service is not cheap to provide and ensure there are dedicated servers for, and certainly given the various balance patches and patches to the matchmaking and so on that are going through they're putting enough effort to deserve that ten bucks from you if you bought the game used-- otherwise, you aren't their customer anyway so they have no obligation to support you.

happydude wrote:
This ^




Used game sales account for a nice chunk of retailers profits, ESPECIALLY the mom and pop game stores who make a chunk of revenue from used titles. EA belongs to vivendi. Look them up, they are not going to go broke anytime soon, this is a greedy ploy.

It's not the point of going broke. It's a point of getting payed for what you work for for a couple of years.

You are correct, believe me. With most game titles unfinished and DLC being released day one with sub par dlc down the road that people buy anyway that title becomes a 70-90 dollar game instead of 60. These companies fail to see that if someone new buys their used title, after someone has already bought their dlc and traded it in, this new consumer will probably ALSO purchase said dlc for whatever the cost. however this is not enough and they require an additional 10 dollars from your pocket...

What does it matter? If you pay $20 for a used game, you pay $10 for a online pass, that's $30, still half the price of the New Game.

Also, name me one DLC that you have to purchase in order to "finish" the game......



Any of you guys who are arguing against this download music from Grokster or Limewire or anywhere like that?

Slarg232 wrote: (1) It's a point of getting payed for what you work for for a couple of years. What does it matter? If you pay $20 for a used game, you pay $10 for a online pass, that's $30, still half the price of the New Game.

(2) Also, name me one DLC that you have to purchase in order to "finish" the game......

(3) Any of you guys who are arguing against this download music from Grokster or Limewire or anywhere like that?

1. It's about getting paid twice, undeservedly. They are taking an extra cut from second-hand buyers without doing any extra work or content. Plenty of companies artificially bump up their prices (charging for eating in, extra money for condiments) but in this case it is entirely unjustified. You are still paying less than for a full game, true, but you are paying more than you should because of a company's greed. Unacceptable.

2. There are plenty of examples where DLC has obviously been cut from the game to sell separately. Assassins creed II and The Sims spring to mind but I'm sure i could find more with little research. They basically decide to sell the entire game for, say, $80 instead of $60. You don't have to buy it but are punished by missing content if the DLC wasn't removed in the first place.

3. Hypocrisy or not, that isn't relevant.

Undeservedly?

They're providing an online service for the game which the used game buyer can use despite not having paid the company for their product.

The person might as well have just downloaded the game and burned it onto a disk as far as the company's profits go. They aren't a customer to the company, the company has no obligation to serve them.