EA's Online Pass

[Toadofsky]

I'll just say it again, the fact that games are sooo expensive to make, is not my problem. It's the game companies fault for not trying to find better ways to make a game without it being such a financial risk, if companies can't figure that out, or find a way to compete with the used game market, that's their own fault.

I really don't care for the whole "we need to support developers" arguement. That could come down to one thing, developers are crappy businessman, and can't make deals with their publishers to get a bigger cut of the profits, ego could factor in as well. But the excuse game makers have for their game not selling for long? "Used games are killing it!"

This generation has seriously taken a dark turn.

This is not pro consumer, it's anti-consumer. And when companies continue this mentality, it can hurt them in the long run. And I will gladly say good riddance to them.

[DarkeSword]

The problem is sport game values drop drastically once a new year hits. And no one here think's EA will keep this to sports games only. What if they do this with ME3? Or they mess with ME2? WCS what if they pull something with TOR?

They did do this with ME2. It's called the Cerberus Network, and it's for all the free DLC that you get with the game. Buy the game new, you get access to the Cerberus Network for new weapons, quests, etc. Buy the game used, you gotta pay up for a Cerberus Network pass.

TOR is an MMO, so I don't even know why you're bringing that up.

The used game market is the only way for people who have limited incomes to be able to play some of the better games out there. I'm sorry if that pisses you off but thats the way it is. Most of us dont feel like spending 60 dollars for a game to begin with.

So wait until it's economical to buy it or do without. It's the same argument I have against people who try to justify piracy: if you're not willing to pay the asking price, then don't play the game.

Now it'll be 70 for an EA sports title. I wasnt willing to pay 50 before what makes you think i'd pay 70? I was seriously thinking of getting a Madden this fall. Not going to happen. Not now probably not ever at this point.

You're flat out wrong. Buy new, you get the pass. Buy used, you pay 10 extra. Nobody's charging you 10 bucks on top of the 60 dollar new-and-shiny retail price.

If this kind of fee had been on FF13. I wouldnt have bought. Had it been on Forza 3 i would have kept my money and gone elsewhere.

Did you buy those games new or used? Because if you bought them new, you wouldn't have been hit with any extra fees anyway, so it would have been exactly the same. If you bought those games used, then the publisher wouldn't have counted that as a sale anyway, because they didn't make any profit off of your purchase; they wouldn't notice a drop in sales because they don't keep track of used sales anyway.

If it spread to every game on consoles i'd pawn my xbox and upgrade my computer and renounce console gaming all together. This aint good for anyone. And the long term implications of something like this should scare people.

There are more important things in the world to be scared of than online fees for video games.

[Hyperion5182]

They did do this with ME2. It's called the Cerberus Network, and it's for all the free DLC that you get with the game. Buy the game new, you get access to the Cerberus Network for new weapons, quests, etc. Buy the game used, you gotta pay up for a Cerberus Network pass.

Yeah but at least thats extra content. This is just to play online which is where the sports games THRIVE these days.

TOR is an MMO, so I don't even know why you're bringing that up.

Because its EA, they do crazy shit and i'm envisioning the worst case scenario. Because honestly its happened.

So wait until it's economical to buy it or do without. It's the same argument I have against people who try to justify piracy: if you're not willing to pay the asking price, then don't play the game.

Yeah sorry i'm not tryin to make a piracy argument but you smashed the 2nd hand market a market i prefer to make use of to get Good Titles cheaper. Sports games these days are all about online play. Dont believe me? Check out Madden Nation on ESPN some time. I think 60 bucks for a sports title that isnt updated over the years now that the tech is there is far too much. Now given how sports titles fall off when a new game hits this raises the end price 10 dollars. So instead of spending 10 for a used they'll be forced to spend 20 if they want to play online. One of the biggest draws for sports games.

You're flat out wrong. Buy new, you get the pass. Buy used, you pay 10 extra. Nobody's charging you 10 bucks on top of the 60 dollar new-and-shiny retail price.

Yeaaah riiiiight. Its only a matter of time. It really is. Back to your thing about ME2 you only got it free if you managed to get the collectors edition which was about 100 bucks. I'm relatively sure brand new base games had to pay that fee too. EA's at it again and this is bad in general for the gaming industry.

Did you buy those games new or used? Because if you bought them new, you wouldn't have been hit with any extra fees anyway, so it would have been exactly the same. If you bought those games used, then the publisher wouldn't have counted that as a sale anyway, because they didn't make any profit off of your purchase; they wouldn't notice a drop in sales because they don't keep track of used sales anyway.

New. I was really interested in forza 3 and FF13. But then i had the money to get them new at the time.

There are more important things in the world to be scared of than online fees for video games.

Yeah but this website isn't about those things. I stand by my statement. EA will see the cash from this in the used market and will say "Why not other games?" I'm not happy about this situation and you shouldn't be either. I just hope it doesnt spread. This pretty much keeps me out of the sports franchise games. I shouldn't need to be penalized for looking for a deal in this fucking economy which is exactly what this is.

[zircon]

I'll just say it again, the fact that games are sooo expensive to make, is not my problem. It's the game companies fault for not trying to find better ways to make a game without it being such a financial risk, if companies can't figure that out, or find a way to compete with the used game market, that's their own fault.

Actually, it IS your problem. When games get really expensive to make, any failure means developers closing up shop, layoffs, less risks taken, more sequels, ports and knockoffs, less innovation, longer development cycles, etc. And guess what? We're seeing tons of that stuff now. FF13 took what, 5 or 6 years to develop? Next generation it might take 7 or 8, if not more. Does anyone really want that?

[Kanthos]

Don't take this personally, but the fact that games are sooo expensive to make, is not my problem. It's the game companies fault for not trying to find better ways to make a game without it being such a financial risk, if companies can't figure that out, or find a way to compete with the used game market, that's their own fault.

They just did figure out a way to compete with the used market, and now you're whining about that. Genius.

Developers are fighting an uphill battle. Other than a short period immediately following the release of a game (i.e. before any used copies are available), who would buy a new copy instead of a used one? You'd only buy new if the price difference is so small that you're not saving much by buying used, if there were one-time-use materials or other benefits in the box with a new copy, or there are no used copies available. Without publishers and developers taking explicit action, though, the used market *will* cut into their sales and isn't something they can compete against. Just trying to 'put out a better game' won't change the retail landscape. Cutting costs won't increase sales of new copies (and if quality is affected at all, would likely *reduce* sales of new copies).

Think about it logically. Unless the games industry can somehow shut down the used game market entirely (which would also include the inevitable upsurge in people using Craigslist and other services as individuals if they couldn't take the game they no longer want to play into Gamestop), there are only two ways to fight this as a developer. You either restrict the game so that it has no trade-in value, or you find a way to generate revenue from used sales.

Reducing the trade-in value to 0 is something that's been done easily in the PC market with the use of serial numbers that need to be registered in order to play the game online. In Canada, we're not allowed to trade in PC games at EB Games (Canada's Gamestop) anymore, perhaps because the game industry put enough pressure on retailers because of piracy concerns, something that doesn't exist in nearly the same way on consoles because of the increased difficulty of duplication and the increased difficulty of playing pirated media (console hacking, unofficial firmwares, and the like).

So there really is one good solution: find a way to make a profit on used game sales. Which, shockingly, the industry is starting to discover and people are starting to whine about.

I spent 4 months with EA as a co-op student, programming for MVP Baseball 2004. The team was between 60 and 80 people, the majority of whom were on the project full-time (QA testers would rotate from game to game; our office in Vancouver did most of EA's sports titles, other than Madden, Tiger Woods, and NHL - the latter was at a separate office still in Vancouver). Now of course EA could've had a smaller team if they had a longer release cycle, but still, that's a lot of money to spend on salary alone, let alone licensing, equipment, and all the other costs required to get a game to market.

Games these days *require* teams this size (simple 2D DS games being the exception). As zircon said, middleware products help out a lot, but there's still a ton of work to do. And it's not something that's negotiable either; gamers will avoid games that aren't as good as they expect. You can't cut a lot of corners and produce a worthwhile game.

In short: gamers are stupid. We demand better and better quality at lower and lower prices, expect that all the upgrades and DLC we can dream up should be free, and value savings of a few dollars now over supporting the companies we claim to love in the long run.

[DarkeSword]

Because its EA, they do crazy shit and i'm envisioning the worst case scenario. Because honestly its happened.

When? When has this happened with MMOs? How is this even possible? MMOs have two business models: subscription and microtransaction.

Yeah sorry i'm not tryin to make a piracy argument but you smashed the 2nd hand market a market i prefer to make use of to get Good Titles cheaper. Sports games these days are all about online play. Dont believe me? Check out Madden Nation on ESPN some time. I think 60 bucks for a sports title that isnt updated over the years now that the tech is there is far too much. Now given how sports titles fall off when a new game hits this raises the end price 10 dollars. So instead of spending 10 for a used they'll be forced to spend 20 if they want to play online. One of the biggest draws for sports games.

And 20 bucks is still way cheaper than 60. Is it so bad that you throw 10 bucks EA's way so that they can continue to develop a series that you obviously enjoy?

Yeaaah riiiiight. Its only a matter of time. It really is.

Really, that's your rebuttal? You've misunderstood what's actually happening, I point out the facts, and all you can say is "yeah right?"

Back to your thing about ME2 you only got it free if you managed to get the collectors edition which was about 100 bucks. I'm relatively sure brand new base games had to pay that fee too. EA's at it again and this is bad in general for the gaming industry.

No, you didn't have to buy the collectors edition to get your Cerberus Network access. It came with every copy that was new.

Yeah but this website isn't about those things. I stand by my statement. EA will see the cash from this in the used market and will say "Why not other games?" I'm not happy about this situation and you shouldn't be either. I just hope it doesnt spread. This pretty much keeps me out of the sports franchise games. I shouldn't need to be penalized for looking for a deal in this fucking economy which is exactly what this is.

You can still look for a deal. I rarely pay full price for new games anymore. I buy online, use coupons, and wait for sales.

[Malaki-LEGEND.sys]

Is anyone familiar with a quote from a few analysts saying that the extra 10 bucks on a 50 dollar game was a pretty arbitrary decision that just kinda stuck because people were willing to pay it?

http://kotaku.com/5373108/whos-responsible-for-the-60-price-tag

Here's another one I read about a year back that gives an idea of how profits on a game are distributed.

http://kotaku.com/5479698/what-your-60-really-buys

Basically, there's no real reason games should cost 60 bucks from what these people are saying. They were perfectly fine at 50, and could have even stood to go a bit lower. Hell, look at Super Mario RPG. For as long as I could remember seeing this game on the retail shelf, it was a good $80. I never bought it. Why? Not because I couldn't have saved enough cash to grab it at one point, but because of the value proposition. No game on this earth is worth 80 bucks. I could have found plenty of things worth buying that I'd actually need. had it been 50 or less? I might have grabbed it without question.

But another point is that if you're not cool with game prices, then don't buy 'em at those prices. Don't buy used copies either. Wait 'til the prices go down. That's putting your money where your mouth is.

[zircon]

How is the market's willingness to pay at that price "no reason"? Prices for products are not set based on how much they cost to make. If you've taken basic economics you know the rule; there is an ideal point where the supply and demand curves intersect, and that point is the equilibrium price. In simple terms, there is a sweet spot of (Quantity * Price). At this point you might sell 1 million copies for $60, whereas if you increase the price to $70 you only sell 500,000 copies, and if you decrease the price to $50 you'll only sell 1.2 million (overall, less profit generated in either scenario.)

$60 has resulted in greater video game sales revenues (quantity sold * price of game.) That's the reason for the $60 price tag. That's the reason for the price of most any consumer good. Companies have little reason to sell a product at a price that results in less revenue.

[Malaki-LEGEND.sys]

They obviously aren't at the "sweet spot" if companies like Gamestop are touting huge quarterly gains through their used game market.

[zircon]

What does that have anything to do with it? The secondary market isn't the market for new games. It's possible to be at the equilibrium price and still have a thriving secondary market. Put another way, the people participating in the secondary market are already included on the demand curve of the primary market. Reducing the price of a new game to $30 would improve sales numbers, since you are moving lower on the demand curve and thus increasing quantity sold, but the overall revenue wouldn't be as high. Put yet another way, if the increase in price from $50 to $60 resulted in less total sales revenue, it wouldn't have stuck.

[K.B.]

Some of you are being presumptuous in your implication that used gamers would buy new if the prices for used games were raised enough to make them comparable with new games. I posit that many used gamers would give a middle finger to all companies whose games conform to this trend and refuse to buy any of their games/content. That's taking a page from the music piracy saga, but it's relevant.

Regarding the argument that this could become an industry-wide standard: it could if there isn't a PR - and consequently, sales - backlash. But that's too slippery-slope and abstract right now to draw firm conclusions. As for it to pass that such locks could be applied not only to online content but to games in general: this would require an entirely new precedent that would defy our current notion of ownership. Well, ownership of anything the government doesn't want to be able to reach out and touch, but that's another topic entirely.

[Coyote-Trickster]

I really don't care for the whole "we need to support developers" arguement. That could come down to one thing, developers are crappy businessman, and can't make deals with their publishers to get a bigger cut of the profits, ego could factor in as well. But the excuse game makers have for their game not selling for long? "Used games are killing it!"

I trully agree

Gaming is so popular now that they are selling ALOT more games now then they did the NES era. Also companies ditched costly cartriges to disk formats that litteraly cost nothing to produce. with these increased sales and cost savings they still have to find ways to get a few extra dollars?

GTA 4 cost 100 million to make and apparently holds the record for the biggest game production cost... So... We need a hollywood budgets to make games now? 100 million dollars to create a digital "world" that isn't even real?

maybe these people need to learn to control their spending.

[DarkeSword]

I trully agree

Gaming is so popular now that they are selling ALOT more games now then they did the NES era. Also companies ditched costly cartriges to disk formats that litteraly cost nothing to produce. with these increased sales and cost savings they still have to find ways to get a few extra dollars?

GTA 4 cost 100 million to make and apparently holds the record for the biggest game production cost... So... We need a hollywood budgets to make games now? 100 million dollars to create a digital "world" that isn't even real?

maybe these people need to learn to control their spending.

Maybe you need to develop a sense of how complicated and involved creating a digital world actually is.

Go ahead, start up a development studio and try to make a complex game like GTA4. See how much it costs you.

[Level 99]

Yeah, I read about this a bit ago too, and there's honestly a lot more under the surface than people may initially think about. I'll do my best to avoid ranting to the point of incomprehension:

* The used games market isn't 100% taking money out of developers pockets. There are many reasons people will buy a used game, besides the fact that they're cheaper: it's a way of gambling less money on whether the game is good or bad. Example: buying Madden 2005 used because you're new to the sports game thing. If you like it, and you have friends who play it and buy it on day one, you'd probably buy it new just to play with them. Of course that's a lesser reason, but you can't say that all used sales result in only more used sales.

* On the same note, used sales are the more sound "business choice". I'm playing devil's advocate here. Gamestop buys 50 copies of the new Final Fantasy game for every retail store. Gamestop buys these games at the highest premium, in bulk, from the game manufacturer. Let's say that the new game is a total flop. Gamestop eventually marks down the price by more than 50% to just move the copies out and make some kind of comp back for the initial purchase. Used games are nearly 100% profit for the company, minus repair cost and taxes or whatever. None of the initial payment goes back to the developer, which is what EA's new approach is trying to change. They don't want zero used sales: they want money for every copy sold, either new or used. The amount of people who have played a game never equates to how many people have actually contributed to the developer for playing it.

* I'm talking strictly console games, as PC games aren't even really part of the trade scheme anymore. Gamestop, the biggest retail store that deals in used game trade, doesn't accept PC games and has not for a long time. Also, looking at the section of PC games at a store like that shows how the majority of PC games are either available via digital distribution or can be purchased either online OR in brick-and-mortar stores. I hate to lump the entire group of PC gamers together, but everywhere you look on the PC platform, it's shifted extremely towards non-physical media distribution. As a result, PC games are more subject to piracy, which definitely takes money out of developers pockets. And the current retail solution for piracy is trending with DRM. I'm not even going to touch on the subject of DRM and how they're punishing the paying customer for the pirates, thus further encouraging people to pirate because of inconvenience; not part of the current argument.

* I see this entire approach as an extension of the popularity and profit generated from DLC usage. The nickel-and-dime approach has done wonders for making money back to publishers and, to a lesser extent, the developers. Why make a complete game when you can just sell more DLC? Why focus on getting it perfect when you can just patch it? Why not charge for horse armor? If the entire distribution of all games can't be digital, as is the case with consoles, then every method possible without losing too many smart consumers is employed to get more money. Zircon's absolutely right about the average cost to make a game today much higher than it used to be. Episodic add-ons that circumvent the retail outlets are a guaranteed way to make money and not lose it on used game sales. Because even if you buy a game used today, like Burnout Paradise, you still have to pay for all the DLC for your own account; it does not come with the purchase of the vanilla game.

I'll have more thoughts later, but only after I buy the Lunch DLC for the game "My stomach on a Friday"

[Tinus]

Funny how everyone's complaining about the $60 price tag. New games are 60 euros over here, which is currently about $75 (and the Euro hasn't been doing too well lately with all the trouble in Greece). The 60 euro price tag does include 19% tax.

Still, video game prices have barely changed, and actually gotten lower in case of Nintendo's systems, over the past 20 years, so I can't complain about that at all.

On the other hand, statements like "the second hand market is killing the industry" are just completely ridiculous. The right to sell property to somebody else is such a basic right, that it seems insane to think it could be "killing" anything. Just like with anything else, second hand sales have been happening with video games for as long as they have existed. The only thing that seems to have changed recently is that stores like Gamestop have made buying and selling used games more convenient, and they've found a way to make money off of it. Good for them?

To me it's baffling how widely spread the attitude is that used game sales are now an evil which needs to be fought, not just among video game publishers. Everyone suddenly seems to think that the publisher somehow deserves to get a cut every time a video game changes ownership. This is just not how the concept of ownership works.

Edit: wow this thread is really moving.

Maybe you need to develop a sense of how complicated and involved creating a digital world actually is.

Go ahead, start up a development studio and try to make a complex game like GTA4. See how much it costs you.

I enjoyed GTA4, but not every game has to be like it. Much, if not most, of the development cost of developing a game like GTA go into creating high-resolution textures and extremely detailed character models, and of course developing or licensing a game engine that can display them. I think the success of the Wii, XBLA and indie games proves that we've reached a point where many gamers just don't care about that.

Also GTA4 was a huge commercial success. In spite of all the second hand sales.

[Coyote-Trickster]

Maybe you need to develop a sense of how complicated and involved creating a digital world actually is.

Go ahead, start up a development studio and try to make a complex game like GTA4. See how much it costs you.

My point is you don't need to spend that much, other companies have done popular titles for far less. I can't seem to find a recent sales figure but in 2008 GTA4 sold past 6 million units worldwide. Still a good return for their investment.

Here are the numbers I was able to find http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2008/05/grand-theft-aut/

i'm getting the impression that people think that devlopers need our "help" to survive. The entertainement industry is doing rather fine by itself, don't think they need donations from us. the only thing that really hurts them is piracy, not the used market.

[Coyote-Trickster]

Funny how everyone's complaining about the $60 price tag. New games are 60 euros over here, which is currently about $75 (and the Euro hasn't been doing too well lately with all the trouble in Greece).

Oh geez, you just reminded me of how expensive Australian gaming was. Games there were 80$ to almost 100$ Thanks for reminding me of those horrible days ;p

Tinus I hope that crash doesn't mess up everything over there in europe, I hate it when things like this happen...

[zircon]

The fact that gamers demand mainstream games with massive budgets shows that we do, in fact, want/need that. Yeah, indie games are up-and-coming, but they're not pulling the same kind of numbers (or anywhere close) that the big games are. I don't know why you guys are even arguing this. Making proper AI, designing levels, coding (Uncharted 2 had over 1 million lines of custom code), modeling, rigging, texturing, animating, creating realistic physics, all of this costs massive $$$.

[Coyote-Trickster]

The fact that gamers demand mainstream games with massive budgets shows that we do, in fact, want/need that. Yeah, indie games are up-and-coming, but they're not pulling the same kind of numbers (or anywhere close) that the big games are. I don't know why you guys are even arguing this. Making proper AI, designing levels, coding (Uncharted 2 had over 1 million lines of custom code), modeling, rigging, texturing, animating, creating realistic physics, all of this costs massive $$$.

yeah, good point.

Everything you do these days seems to cost crazy amounts of money, I'm just waiting for pay toilets to come back, then we are screwed lol ^^

[Tinus]

Tinus I hope that crash doesn't mess up everything over there in europe, I hate it when things like this happen...

Heh, thanks I'm not too worried honestly. I think the euro has been doing much better than anyone could have anticipated when it was introduced. As long as Spain and Portugal stay out of trouble I think we should be fine.

But I'm not an economist and I haven't even been following the situation with Greece very closely, so hey what do I know.

The fact that gamers demand mainstream games with massive budgets shows that we do, in fact, want/need that.

To a certain extent, yes. But in the end it's all about supply and demand. At some point there are so many GTA clones, or Madden games, or whatever, that not all of them will sell well at $60 (or whatever price). Blaming piracy and/or second hand sales for diappointing results seems an easy cop-out.

edit: typo

[The Coop]

This is the only downside I see to this plan, otherwise I'm in full support of what Darkesword said. Is it a relentlessly corporate thing to do? Sure, but I'd much rather see some amount of the used game market get thrown back to developers when, as zircon said, the price of making games has hit an all-time high.

... all of this costs massive $$$.

It does indeed cost cash, and making games is very expensive. But EA doesn't need this money to survive. They just recently posted over $1 billion (that's a "B") in Non-GAAP Net Revenue profits in Q2 last year. Then there's this...

http://www.totalvideogames.com/FIFA-10/news/EA-Announces-Record-Breaking-Revenue-For-FY10-15222.html

So again, how is this fee justified? What income are they trying to make up for when they're posting record revenue? I may not be a businessman, or understand the market well, but "record breaking revenue" sounds like they're doing just fine and this fee smacks of simply being a cash grab by wringing more out of the pockets of the people already supporting them.

And here's something I wondered about earlier this morning while my power was out...

What's going to happen to the game rental business should this become the norm?

[DarkeSword]

So again, how is this fee justified? What income are they trying to make up for when they're posting record revenue? I may not be a businessman, or understand the market well, but "record breaking revenue" sounds like they're doing just fine and this fee smacks of simply being a cash grab by wringing more out of the pockets of the people already supporting them.

The people buying the games used aren't actually supporting them though.

[Vivi22]

It does indeed cost cash, and making games is very expensive. But EA doesn't need this money to survive. They just recently posted over $1 billion (that's a "B") in Non-GAAP Net Revenue profits in Q2 last year.

Net revenue isn't profit. And I'm not even going to touch a non-GAAP number because they can pretty much calculate that however they want to.

Looking at their actual GAAP financial results that they posted as of March 31, they had a profit of only $50 million for the three months ended (not a lot for a company their size) and a loss of $677 million for the 12 months ended March 31. Cash flow was better for those three months, but was also negative for the 12 month period (though there are some big, and presumably, one time things included in that). Now it's all unaudited so grain of salt, and they may not be doing terribly in terms of cash flow, but they didn't make a profit in the last 12 months.

And don't throw out a single number like net revenue and imply that everything is necessarily peachy for any company. $1 billion in net revenue wouldn't mean much if your company has another $2 billion in expenses that isn't included in that number, and is bleeding cash.

[Coyote-Trickster]

Just out of curiosity... How hard is it do trade data?

I mean I have a north American PSN account and a Japanese one. I can play what I've downloaded from the Japan store on my NA account. I've Also I've heard of people hacking PS3 data to "break" certain restraints. Could it be possible that a clever gamer could hack EA's gamecode deal?

People on playstation Home in particular Are hacking Japanese items to their NA accounts, something that should be imposible in theory. but from what I understand they hack the region setting, I had a look and it seemed like a major pain in the butt though. I wanted the Hatsune Miku outfit ;_;

[The Coop]

The people buying the games used aren't actually supporting them though.

True, but the fact that it's used means someone bought it new and the given company got their $20 to $100 (gotta count the nifty Collector's stuff)

If EA wants a piece of this used market pie, why not go after the retail chains that sell used games? Get Gamestop, Blockbuster and them to give a percentage of all used EA games sold to EA. Why go directly after the user with a $10 fee?

Vivi22- If that's the case, then what;s the point of boasting about big revenues, umpteen million copies and games X, Y and Z being sold and all that?

Again, I'm no market strategist. But if they bled cash despite this, isn't that a bit like jumping up and down celebrating that you got hit by a car?