HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Geek Emporium
Geek Emporium Discuss computers, hardware, software, electronics, video games, internet, etc.

EA being EA....

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-11-2010, 10:39 AM
  #51
CarlWinslow
@hiphopsicles
 
CarlWinslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,620
vCash: 500
It's greed.

Every big company will look to pass on its losses to the easiest target, the consumer. EA is doing just that and I will keep in mind next time I'm at the store considering a used game.

There is no point buying an EA game unless it is a new copy which I will still do with NHL 11 but that's about it.

CarlWinslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 10:56 AM
  #52
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFeelgood View Post
Has nothing to do with charging for content on the disc, this is charging for people playing online that don't buy the game at retail, but buy it used.

It's to encourage people to buy games new and support the publisher/developer, rather than buying used and giving all of that $40-50 to the retailer.

To play devils advocate of sorts, you are playing on EA servers for sports titles, owned and kept by EA and all of that good stuff. Why should EA let you play on their server for free when they didn't see a single cent of your money when you bought it?
To be honest their servers, at least for PS on NHL 10, are complete garb. I've never had problems in ANY other games inviting my cousin to games, playing games of any kind with him except for this game.

Well it turns out we had to enable DMZ mode for his PS3 or do a ton of port forwarding, we chose DMZ mode.

Now if it wasn't me/him hosting the match but the servers, why would I need to do that? (no need to answer that question)

Anyways every other game PSN works perfectly fine for me, except this one for some reason, I invite people and it fails, I'm not going to walk every person who uses a ps3 that I know how to setup DMZ or forward ports, imo they dropped the ball here, they don't even host the games people do, so to be quite frank they have no right to charge me 10$ for buying their game used.

It would make sense if the person you bought the game from was able to keep the original and you would just install the game, because then I'd understand 2 games using the same "serial" not being able to play online together or at the same time, much like PC games, but in PC if I give or sell my friend a game, they takeover that serial # and I no longer get to play that game (legitimately speaking), why should EA get to charge me 10$ to make an account or this or that to play a game I bought used, when quite frankly since it's a console game the person who sold it can no longer play it and thus no longer use their account anyways.

I just don't see the logic here other than to basically steal money from people. It may as well be stealing, they're basically making you pay them 10$ to be able to play a game you bought used, in used condition hence why the price is lower, online. It's a crock if you ask me, why should I pay 10$ more on a game I bought for the price it was worth, a percentage off for being used. Again, it's not like the previous owner can still play it. Basically you're almost paying the new price if the game is pretty recent, to me this is robbery, why should they have the right to tell you that you can or cannot play a game online due to the fact that you bought it used when:

A) All their servers do is match you up, you're technically paying for the bandwidth used to host the match not them, one way or another somebody is hosting, they're just the gateway that gets players together.

B) You pay for your internet connection, console AND if you're an xbox user, xbox live as well.

It's pretty sad that now blizzard is going to charge people for maps like DOTA (for sc2) and map packs, and now same can be said for mods or mod-esque content for consoles as well (map packs for cod etc). I understand this is bonus content but all of this used to be free and now they're trying to find ways to milk every dollar they can out of us. With the map packs and such I can understand, but really EA, used games online now too?

It's damn pathetic, it's not like they even do it to stop piracy, they're doing it to milk the consumers who opt out of buying the game when it first comes out and buy it used, usually a bit worn out too. If I'm paying for the same game in a lesser condition, to me fair is fair, why should I then have to pay an additional 10$ just to play it online, that's ridiculous, EA should be ashamed of themselves for doing this.

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 11:01 AM
  #53
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlWinslow View Post
It's greed.

Every big company will look to pass on its losses to the easiest target, the consumer. EA is doing just that and I will keep in mind next time I'm at the store considering a used game.

There is no point buying an EA game unless it is a new copy which I will still do with NHL 11 but that's about it.
All it's going to do is make less people buy the game used, I doubt it even changes sales for their new games by anything more than a fraction of a % if that. The people who buy used games buy them for a reason as do the people who buy new games. Some people care about the price and are willing to wait, other people don't care and want say GT5 right when it comes out, not 6 months later. Anyways bottom line is it isn't going to make very many people change their minds, those people will likely just buy a different game or keep playing their NHL 10. I see it changing few peoples decisions.

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 11:07 AM
  #54
Sined
The AndroidBugler!
 
Sined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottyk9 View Post
Get use to it. It's the digital age we're heading into. All developers will be doing it soon enough.

It sucks.
I disagree, Blizzard would never do such a bush league move.

Sined is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 11:16 AM
  #55
Bruins4Lifer
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Bruins4Lifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sined View Post
I disagree, Blizzard would never do such a bush league move.
You know who owns Blizzard right?

Bruins4Lifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 11:40 AM
  #56
The Dayvan Cowboy
Registered Genius
 
The Dayvan Cowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sined View Post
Blizzard would never do such a bush league move.
Don't hold your breath.


The Dayvan Cowboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 01:07 PM
  #57
Frankie Spankie
Registered User
 
Frankie Spankie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Dorchester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Therrien View Post
That's not what's happening. And what's "on the disc" really has no merit anyway. But that's another argument that some people will never understand.
Just got a chance to go through some other posts in the thread. But that's exactly what's happening. Multiplayer is a game mode that is on the game disc. If it's not on the disc, then where is it? It's not as if it's floating around through soundwaves that your system picks up. It's on the disc, there's no arguing that. You're only arguement is that the developers HOST THE SERVERS. And even then, the sale of used games doesn't put any extra strain on the servers because they're still only supporting the amount of games that they sold.

And why does "on the disc" have no merit? What are we paying for? When you go to the store to pick up a game, you expect to be able to access everything that comes with it. Do you buy music CDs and not complain because you can only listen to half the songs? Do you buy DVDs and not care if you can only see the first hour of a movie? No, you buy the CD and expect access to everything on the CD because you own it! What about books? Libraries are hurting the book industry! Oh noes! By being able to borrow full books, you're hurting authors!! We should only be able to borrow a couple of chapters from the library since we're not paying for those!

So please, explain to me what this argument that people don't seem to understand is. I'd really like to know because I don't understand how you can go out and buy a CD, whether it's music, movie, or video game, and not expect to have access to everything on it.

Frankie Spankie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 01:15 PM
  #58
Jack Bourdain
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Jack Bourdain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montréal, QC.
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sined View Post
I disagree, Blizzard would never do such a bush league move.
Activision (owns Blizzard) and EA are like twins, except in this story they're both evil.

Jack Bourdain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 01:50 PM
  #59
SilverSeven
Registered User
 
SilverSeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlWinslow View Post
It's greed.

Every big company will look to pass on its losses to the easiest target, the consumer. EA is doing just that and I will keep in mind next time I'm at the store considering a used game.

There is no point buying an EA game unless it is a new copy which I will still do with NHL 11 but that's about it.
Newsflash: Everything is greed. They are a company in it to make money...of course they are greedy.

I think people in here are vastly underestimating how much used games are hurting game companies...even the big ones.

And as has been stated, this wont affect consumers, this will affect all the retailers who are gouging people with a used price that is $5 less than new.

SilverSeven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 01:55 PM
  #60
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krejci46 View Post
Just got a chance to go through some other posts in the thread. But that's exactly what's happening. Multiplayer is a game mode that is on the game disc. If it's not on the disc, then where is it? It's not as if it's floating around through soundwaves that your system picks up. It's on the disc, there's no arguing that. You're only arguement is that the developers HOST THE SERVERS. And even then, the sale of used games doesn't put any extra strain on the servers because they're still only supporting the amount of games that they sold.

And why does "on the disc" have no merit? What are we paying for? When you go to the store to pick up a game, you expect to be able to access everything that comes with it. Do you buy music CDs and not complain because you can only listen to half the songs? Do you buy DVDs and not care if you can only see the first hour of a movie? No, you buy the CD and expect access to everything on the CD because you own it! What about books? Libraries are hurting the book industry! Oh noes! By being able to borrow full books, you're hurting authors!! We should only be able to borrow a couple of chapters from the library since we're not paying for those!

So please, explain to me what this argument that people don't seem to understand is. I'd really like to know because I don't understand how you can go out and buy a CD, whether it's music, movie, or video game, and not expect to have access to everything on it.
Agree completely with this statement. People are always just simply not understanding something if they aren't agreeing with whatever it is you're (Therrien) saying.

Frankly even in MWF2 a very common game for the PS3, the user actually hosts so, I fail to see why a service I could host on a 50mbit line (easily) that puts people in lobby's and has somebody else hosting the game, not the developer but the end user, should cost me 10$ more to use, being that the game is used.

What's there to understand, this isn't an MMO here, the central servers in most cases do not host the games. In some games the ranked matches are hosted by the developers servers, but why are people defending EA trying to make a correlation between server costs and a game that's used costing you 10$ more to play online.

I would understand if they built this 10$ into the price of the game, in terms of buying it new. Server costs for a game you are selling making the price higher makes sense. But if your only defense to this ludicrous idea is to say "server costs" then you really need to look up the word "logic" or "logical" in the dictionary. How do games being sold used in anyway have any linking to server costs, they don't. If that were the excuses EA wanted to use, they'd be pricing their games 10$ higher. The truth is EA doesn't need a valid reason nor are they giving one, they just want to try and pressure the gamers to buy the game new rather than used, or else pay the penalty. (Either way in their eyes it equates to more $, either the player buys it new and thus, they get another person buying new vs used, or the used buyer pays 10$)

Basically they found a way to make money off their games being sold used, or at least, they're trying to use this as a way of doing so.

Saying server fees this, other unrelated excuses that, doesn't justify what they are doing. Those things have nothing at all to do with a game being sold used costing you 10 more dollars to play online. Stop trying to justify the fact that they're just out to make more money by making up piss poor excuses like "server fees the end user couldn't possibly understand blah blah blah" because that is complete and total ******** as already stated.

That's like me saying the reason I'm going to charge you more for grape juice, is because I know you're going to share it with a friend. What if every box of grape juice once it wasn't in the hands of the original buyer sealed shut in the hands of others until you inserted a 1$ bill into it in order to make it open back up. It's the same ********, only since this is an online game, in a world where people like to milk as much as they can out of "virtual content" (in other words, something that you don't even physically own) people seem to think this kind of behavior is OK.

To be honest I can see lawsuits happening as a result of this. It just seems EA is taking this way too far, further then it needs to be, just to make a couple extra bucks off the people dumb enough to buy the game used and pay them 10$ to activate the online experience of the game. Maybe some players who buy their games brand new but don't even play them online should call EA right now and ask for a 10$ refund. It's stupid, plain and simple and anyone trying to justify what they're doing with dumb excuses is just plain wrong. It isn't opinion that a lobby server takes very little bandwidth to operate, so minute an amount that it pales in comparison to the profits they already make off of each game.

Not going to deny some games host the matches, but most of them don't, you may not realize it but you may even be hosting them yourselves in many cases. MWF2 for the PS3 just to name one very popular new game where the user is the actual host. It does bandwidth checks on all the people in game to see who the optimal host would be and makes them host. EA can do this to and as far as I know in non-ranked matches they do, they may even do it in ranked matches as hacking on consoles isn't nearly as common on PC.

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 02:00 PM
  #61
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sined View Post
I disagree, Blizzard would never do such a bush league move.
Pretty sure this statement is a joke, blizzard just sold people mounts that cost 25$ a piece, you basically pay 25$ for a mount in a virtual world lmao, 25 real dollars, not 25 gold lmao.

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 02:14 PM
  #62
CarlWinslow
@hiphopsicles
 
CarlWinslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverSeven View Post
Newsflash: Everything is greed. They are a company in it to make money...of course they are greedy.

I think people in here are vastly underestimating how much used games are hurting game companies...even the big ones.

And as has been stated, this wont affect consumers, this will affect all the retailers who are gouging people with a used price that is $5 less than new.
Of course. It's greed. Everything is greed. It's capitalism. It encourages greed. It will someday be our downfall.

CarlWinslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 02:16 PM
  #63
IronMosher
Registered User
 
IronMosher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: South San Jose
Posts: 587
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to IronMosher
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krejci46 View Post
1) Yes, it is charging people for content on the disc already. The multiplayer part of the game is on the disc and they are preventing you from using it by forcing you to pay for the pass.

2) EA should let you play on their server because it's not that you're playing without giving a penny to EA, it's that EA has servers built for all the games they sold to. It's not as if people are making copies of the games and are flooding EA's servers. If they have a server that can hold 1000 games, and out of those 1000 games, the game has changed hands between 10,000 different gamers, it is by no means putting any extra stress on their servers because at any given time, it is only supporting those 1000 games.

This just isn't the way to discourage used games sales. If they want to discourage used games sales, do something like the Golden box for Bad Company 1 where you get a couple extra guns from the start. This gives you incentive to buy the game new and if you buy it used, you can still unlock them, it will just take a lot more time.
Dude, what? I've been in the game industry for 10 years and I can tell you for a fact that each game will not only have it's own server, but it's own server cluster for redundancy. Some small Pogo games and such probably run off the same cluster, but that's because they are tiny compared to a full Xbox game.

I think a lot of the people that feel negatively towards this don't understand that although game companies make an enjoyable product, it's still a business and if they don't make money, they wont be making games for us to enjoy in the future.

There so much to the cost other than a few programmers that many of you don't understand. Such as marketing, QA, sales, management, equipment, janitorial services and so on. Many times games break even or actually lose money even though they were good games and sold well.

IronMosher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 02:29 PM
  #64
19nazzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 17,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sined View Post
I disagree, Blizzard would never do such a bush league move.


They split Starcraft 2 into 3 games to grab $180 instead of $60.

__________________
- Sent from my desktop using my fingers
19nazzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 03:01 PM
  #65
Frankie Spankie
Registered User
 
Frankie Spankie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Dorchester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronMosher View Post
Dude, what? I've been in the game industry for 10 years and I can tell you for a fact that each game will not only have it's own server, but it's own server cluster for redundancy. Some small Pogo games and such probably run off the same cluster, but that's because they are tiny compared to a full Xbox game.

I think a lot of the people that feel negatively towards this don't understand that although game companies make an enjoyable product, it's still a business and if they don't make money, they wont be making games for us to enjoy in the future.

There so much to the cost other than a few programmers that many of you don't understand. Such as marketing, QA, sales, management, equipment, janitorial services and so on. Many times games break even or actually lose money even though they were good games and sold well.
I'll admit, I could have done a better job describing that because it does sound odd.

Let me try to make it as simple as possible with completely arbitrary numbers that I'm just making up for the sake of the argument.

Quote:
Company A sells Video Game A. Video Game A can be played online through Company A's servers.

Video Game A sells 1000 brand new copies, that is all the revenue Company A receives for Video Game A.

Company A wants to support everybody who bought Video Game A to play the multiplayer mode on their servers.

Therefore, Company A only has to supply the servers to host the people who bought the 1000 copies of Video Game A.

If each game is sold used and rebought used several times, this doesn't hurt Company A in the sense of having to provide more servers.
Yes, I realize just how much companies spend and that there's a lot more to it than just developing the game. But by EA is singling out online multiplayer, they make it seem as if people who buy the game used are hurting their servers.

The whole used video game industry is not new. I've been buying used games since I first got my NES and I still buy used games today. And to top it off, video game prices have gone up recently too! I don't remember ever paying more than $50 before this generation came around, now $60 is the norm.

Oh, and I highly doubt that many times games break even/lose money (unless you're counting a ton of indie games that sell for $5-10 per) or else the video game industry would practically be dead. Companies obviously can't survive if they keep losing money, if many games are losing money, many developers lose their jobs.

Here's an idea for game developers to make more money, SUPPORT YOUR GAMES!!! Make map packs, make new game modes, add new levels, any form of DLC. When you do that, you don't even have to pay for advertising! Just change the damn loading screens to inform gamers that new DLCs are out and bam, free marketing. But no, they're too lazy to do that so they'll just come up with some lame scheme to get money for twiddling their thumbs.

On a side note - Why is EA even the first company to do this? Their servers are awful. I'm still yet to play an NHL game with somebody on my friends list because the game "fails to connect" to friends. I lag out on their servers all the time and never even play sports games online as a result. I'm only arguing because if EA succeeds with this, then you're going to see everybody doing it.

Frankie Spankie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 03:35 PM
  #66
noobman
Registered User
 
noobman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Bourdain View Post
EA really struck a great idea, for them of course.

Usually when you buy a product, all of the features of the product belongs to you. You can re-sell the product (and all of its features) in its entirety.

However, EA has separated the online features and made it its own product. It happens to be a "one time only" type of product, which you can't re-sell. In the end, all you can re-sell is the singleplayer features, and everyone must buy their own copy of the multiplayer features.

They're so smart.
That's actually not true.

According to any EULA for any software product you ever buy, the only thing you're really purchasing is a license to use the software. Technically, you don't own any of the game's features. You have instead acquired a license to access the game's features. The only difference now is that EA has chosen to guarantee that your license isn't transferred.

This isn't much different from a product key on a PC game, so I have very little sympathy for those who are up in arms over this.

noobman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 03:56 PM
  #67
RandV
It's a wolf
 
RandV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,573
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlWinslow View Post
It's greed.

Every big company will look to pass on its losses to the easiest target, the consumer. EA is doing just that and I will keep in mind next time I'm at the store considering a used game.

There is no point buying an EA game unless it is a new copy which I will still do with NHL 11 but that's about it.
I've already commented on this but I'll say it again, this is more about EA vs Gamespot than it is EA vs its customers.

People are overlooking the net effect here. What happens when you have brand new NHL 2011 (or any game that features online play) that sells for $50, and a used copy of NHL 2010 that sells for $45 but requires an extra $10 to play online? Obviously no ones going to buy that used copy anymore, leaving Gamestop with two choices, either stop selling used games or adjust the prices of their used games. They'll have to sell the used copy for $35 now, so after online activation the customer still ends up paying the same $45 if they buy used. Net effect is $10 out of Gamestop's pockets and into EA's.

What about the customer that traded in that copy of NHL 2010? I'm not sure exactly how much Gamespot gives them for a game they resell for $45, but if they push the full loss onto the customer and give $10 less for trade-ins, that's going to be at least half the value of the trade in making it no longer worthwhile to trade in month old games, meaning less used games for Gamestop to sell. So while they will definately push some of that loss onto the customer they're not going to be able to unload all of it onto them.

So overall while the customer has the right to be wary of what the game publishers are doing, Gamestop is the bad guy here, not EA.

RandV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 04:05 PM
  #68
kurt
the last emperor
 
kurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFeelgood View Post
Has nothing to do with charging for content on the disc, this is charging for people playing online that don't buy the game at retail, but buy it used.

It's to encourage people to buy games new and support the publisher/developer, rather than buying used and giving all of that $40-50 to the retailer.

To play devils advocate of sorts, you are playing on EA servers for sports titles, owned and kept by EA and all of that good stuff. Why should EA let you play on their server for free when they didn't see a single cent of your money when you bought it?
Because the person that bought the title new gave them that money?

kurt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 04:34 PM
  #69
awesomo
HARD!
 
awesomo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: location, location
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,574
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by noobman View Post
That's actually not true.

According to any EULA for any software product you ever buy, the only thing you're really purchasing is a license to use the software. Technically, you don't own any of the game's features. You have instead acquired a license to access the game's features. The only difference now is that EA has chosen to guarantee that your license isn't transferred.

This isn't much different from a product key on a PC game, so I have very little sympathy for those who are up in arms over this.
This is true, this is pretty much the same for any type of software. When you buy it, you are buying the LICENSE to use it. They did not transfer the rights of the software to you.

awesomo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 04:57 PM
  #70
Ashe
Registered User
 
Ashe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Saskatoon SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,471
vCash: 500
What it does is force you to buy new.
Oh you want to buy a used game for 35 dollars? Well give us 10 dollars and you can get access to the other stuff.
Mass Effect/Dragon Age/Battlefield 2 do this.
It works well. It forces you that if you want free content/the downloadable stuff. That you are at least giving some money back to the company.

Its not greed. Its a company being smart to make sure they are always making money.

You dont care about playing 3 maps in battefield? Then dont spend the 10 dollars to get access to all the free content for being a VIP.
Dont want to get more weapons/quests/etc in mass effect/Dragon age? Then dont buy it.

What this does in the long run :

Lowers used game prices.
Keeps the company making money to bring more games out.
Keeps places like gamestop from ripping you a new one.



Peopel are paying 15$ to buy 5 ****** maps for ModernWarfare2.
Its like having a VIP card from places where they give you 15% off each time you go, But you have to pay 10$ to sign up.

I applaud them for this.

Ashe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 04:59 PM
  #71
Zodiac
Registered User
 
Zodiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,462
vCash: 500
i always buy my games new, so it doesn't matter to me.

i always thought it was pretty sad how Futureshop would sell the newer used games for like $5 less than a brand new copy. give me the new copy ...for $5 more i can make sure that i have a nice fresh clean copy. don't have to worry about some kid's snot nosed hands all over my instruction manual and disc ...no scratches, etc.

it'll suck for the people who love to rent and buy used games ...but since i do neither, i couldn't care less.

Zodiac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 05:38 PM
  #72
Bobby Clark
Spicy Sausage
 
Bobby Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chez Bobby
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,068
vCash: 500
People talk about places like Gamespot that indeed rip you off but there are trading communities out there and it also hurts them.

It's really sad that us people that are able to save up on games by trading or by finding some good used deals have to pay.

Bobby Clark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 07:52 PM
  #73
dhasek3910
Registered User
 
dhasek3910's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,781
vCash: 500
Doesn't this also screw over people who want to rent games? Wouldn't they need to pay $10 additional to rent the game too?? Ugh.

dhasek3910 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 08:58 PM
  #74
The Kult
Registered User
 
The Kult's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 1,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhasek3910 View Post
Doesn't this also screw over people who want to rent games? Wouldn't they need to pay $10 additional to rent the game too?? Ugh.
Yep. Also seems like an attack at things like Gamefly

The Kult is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 09:18 PM
  #75
hlundqvist30*
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV View Post
I've already commented on this but I'll say it again, this is more about EA vs Gamespot than it is EA vs its customers.

People are overlooking the net effect here. What happens when you have brand new NHL 2011 (or any game that features online play) that sells for $50, and a used copy of NHL 2010 that sells for $45 but requires an extra $10 to play online? Obviously no ones going to buy that used copy anymore, leaving Gamestop with two choices, either stop selling used games or adjust the prices of their used games. They'll have to sell the used copy for $35 now, so after online activation the customer still ends up paying the same $45 if they buy used. Net effect is $10 out of Gamestop's pockets and into EA's.

What about the customer that traded in that copy of NHL 2010? I'm not sure exactly how much Gamespot gives them for a game they resell for $45, but if they push the full loss onto the customer and give $10 less for trade-ins, that's going to be at least half the value of the trade in making it no longer worthwhile to trade in month old games, meaning less used games for Gamestop to sell. So while they will definately push some of that loss onto the customer they're not going to be able to unload all of it onto them.

So overall while the customer has the right to be wary of what the game publishers are doing, Gamestop is the bad guy here, not EA.
The more likely scenario is that they just increase the cost of the new game by 10 dollars.

Even if they don't, do you honestly think Gamestop is going to just go, "oh well. I guess we're losing profit"? Of course not. The loss of revenue created by this will be made up for in a different area. Either way, the consumer is the one who loses out.

hlundqvist30* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:46 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.