EA vs. Gamers

100media_imag0065
Tuesday, May 11, 2010

When I was young I would never trade any of my games into any store that would accept them. I simply did not need the money. If I wanted a game I would ask for it for my birthday or put it on my Christmas list. I would borrow some from friends and save up my allowance for the rest. I couldn't even imagine taking my beloved collection and giving it to strangers who would then sell it to other strangers. My games in someone else's house, someone I did not know, just seemed a bit odd to me.

That all changed when the industry began to grow. In the late 90's I was almost in awe at the amount of games that were being showered onto the market. I couldn't keep up with the amount of Dreamcast, Playstation, and Nintendo 64 games released every week. I very clearly remember the first time I traded some games in. It was nearly heartbreaking to hand them over knowing I would never see them again. However that all changed when the cashier went into the back room and walked out with brand new copies of Goldeneye and Shadows of the Empire. At that moment I knew I would be just fine.

Ever since then I have traded my games in to help pay for new games. I like to think that by trading my games in I am helping the industry by buying  brand new games at the same time. I am also helping those less fortunate gamers who can not afford to throw down $65 on a new game whenever the feel the need to play. I know that used game sales hurt the industry. To what extent I do not know. I find it hard to believe the industry's estimate of "Billions" of lost income. However, I do understand where they are coming from.

That understanding was stretched too thin today when I read about EA's new plan to fight used game sales. For the past few months you may have noticed some games including bonus downloads to those who purchase their games new. I thought this was a great way to help motivate people to buy new games, and at the same time it doesn't hurt those who can't afford the $65 price tag. Mass Effect 2, Bad Company 2, The Saboteur, etc all included some extra maps or weapons to those who could afford the new price but didn't hurt those who bought used. That all changed today when EA announced that they were taking this plan one massive step further. EA is going to require anyone who buys their upcoming sports games used to purchase a $10 code in order to unlock the multiplayer.

Are you angry yet? What this means is that for every used EA sports game you buy your going to have to add another $10 onto the price tag if you want to go online with friends. Are you angry yet? This also means that you can no longer borrow and lend EA sports games to friends, and if they take this new tactic further you may not be able to do it with any EA game. This also eliminates, we assume, rentals as well. Are you angry yet? We can also assume that if this new business tactic is successful it will be pushed onto other games as well. If your not angry yet then you need to re-think your position as a gamer.

When I heard this news all I could think about, besides how much EA sucks again, is the less fortunate gamers out there. I personally know a few very good people who will be hurt by this. It is as if EA is coming right out and saying that only those of us rich enough to buy every EA game new will be treated to the entire game, and everyone else will NOT be treated equal. It is hard to imagine what their PR people are thinking right now. I can't imagine the task of trying to rebound off of this image car crash.

One person on a forum I read earlier said it perfectly. "Is Honda going to come to my house and remove the tires off of my pre-owned Accord and ask for $100 to get them back?" Another user said "I hope Apple doesn't remote kill my used iPod Touch I just bought off ebay and ask for more money to reactivate it". Their comments made me think. Does EA have the right to do this? I can not decide. On the one hand it is their game, they made it and they spent their own money distributing it. On the other hand I was always under the impression that once a game is bought it is no longer theirs, it is mine. If I want to re-sell it somewhere they can't do anything about it since it is no longer their property and they can not interfere with my sale of the game to someone else. Once we buy it, we own it. Right?

I wish I knew. I really did. I know that the shit storm that is going to rain down upon EA is only going to get worse. I know there are going to be millions of gamers out there who are now going to think twice about buying a used game. I know that nearly every comment I have read from gamers seems to say that they are disgusted by this, and they plan to cease purchasing all EA products. I also know that nearly none of them will follow through on that promise.

Look around you. Read the news. Many countries will stand up and fight when an injustice is done to them. I think America is one of the few countries who love to talk about making a stand, but hate to act on it. There is one sure way to show our disgust for this new tactic of EA's, and that is to stop purchasing their games. For, as we know, the only reason they are doing this is to curb used game sales and make more money. So surely if we boycott the purchases of their games it will defeat their entire plan. But, are we right in doing that? Are we right to complain? Does EA have the right to do this?

Please, comment.

 
Problem? Report this post
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (10)
Default_picture
May 11, 2010

games didn't ever have DLC back in the day, but now they do ... So maybe they are wanting to go to full digital download, but 360's and PS3's are fully digital :) 

Bman_1a
May 11, 2010

Ownership has been replaced by usership through End User License Agreements.

Used game sales are in no way a proven detriment to the industry -- the opposite, in fact, as most of the money gained from resale is thought to be put back into new games. It doesn't matter. GameStop makes huge profit and developers feel like they are being cheated. Even though there is absolutely no evidence that a used game sale is just a new game sale waiting to happen.

I would be all for publishers participating in the resale of their games in some way. I think that would solve the problem for everyone. But I think the 'fight' against used game sales by publishers and developers is wrong. It's stupid. It's panicky garbage. It will bite them in the ass.

But enough people will say it's reasonable because they like their products and don't care about what's 'right' when they can afford what they want.

Which is probably too cynical to be useful. Sorry.

Picture_002
May 12, 2010

You have every right to complain just as EA has every right to do it.

I look around me. I read the news (hell, it's part of job). If this is America having an injustice done onto it, we've solved a lot of societal problems. Judging from the 20 or so newspapers I deal with on a nightly basis, I doubt that's happened.

It's not a surprise. The writing's been on the wall for a while. Frankly, as much as I empathize with many gamers that buy used games (I know being broke as well as anyone here) I don't really stand with those going the Evil Empire EA story on this. They are attempting a new business model and seeing how it actually plays out. And the market itself will determine whether or not it's a bad thing and whether or not the idea was "panicky garbage" or just the complaining from gamers, many of which whom will complain in forums and fork over their money for the same thing they spent time railing against, which justifies it ultimately to the publisher.

As for what's "right," it's in this case a very relative term that's probably going to center around what your own self-interests are rather. If you're a person that oft lessens the cost of your gaming hobby by not buying used games, you're likely very upset with EA. If you're concerned about an industry riddled with layoffs in recent years, chances are you might a little more slow to anger.

We'll see how it pans out in time. This surely isn't the first or last crack at giving gamers incentive to buy games new.

Default_picture
March 15, 2011

Used game sales "cost" the industry nothing. The first-sale doctrine used to actually mean something. Now, as Brendon says, license agreements have superseded ownership. We don't own the software, we "license" it. Observe the recent AutoCAD fiasco, where the 9th circuit of appeals ruled that an individual couldn't resell a particular piece of software: http://www.ecnmag.com/Articles/2010/09/Edit-View/Court-Rules-Against-Used-Software-Sales/

Moreover, the brick-and-mortar shops have a symbiotic relationship with developers. Used game sales=big profit margins for retailers, which allows them to stay in business and continue to buy games/hardware from the developers.

But as Gerren mentions, this EA Evil Empire storyline is a tad overblown. For one, used games are fully-functional offline. The $10 passes are for online access (which isn't free for EA). When you purchase an EA sports title, you own that particular copy. That I'd agree to. But you're also potentially gaining access to a service, and an argument could be made that EA isn't obligated to offer this service to everyone. I'd agree that developers shouldn't be able to interfere with the secondary market. But since they're not seeing additional revenue from the secondary market, why should they offer the same services?

The Honda analogy is flawed because tires are a crucial component of a vehicle. Online play is not. It'd be analogous to EA arbitrarily disabling half the available teams from used copies of Madden.

On a personal note, I rarely trade in games anymore. When I was younger, I got rid of my NES and full game collection for like $30. I foolishly sold it to this kid I was babysitting for, and have regretted it ever since. I remember when Funcoland (remember that place?) was offering $.01 for Super Mario Bros. 1

Robsavillo
March 15, 2011

Jason, I've expressed this argument before, but I'll reiterate:

Regarding the $10 fee to play online for second-hand purchases, your logic doesn't hold water. The first buyer no longer consumes resources from EA once she's sold the game. In actual terms, the transfer of ownership shouldn't matter to a publisher in regard to online services because [i]the total number of copies stays the same[/i]. In other words, whether or not a game is sold, EA services the same number of people, which means that second-hand purchases will never result in additional cost.

You can make the argument that pirated copies do represent a drain on resources, but not used games.

Default_picture
March 15, 2011

@Rob

Well, EA's logic (and I'm not sure I agree) is that the secondhand market is not a sale on their end, and therefore they're not obligated to offer the requisite services and support. It's not necessarily a question of resources, but the morality of providing the same support for second-hand copies. Is this legal? Probably. Is this bad PR for EA? Most definitely.

Unfortunately, since developers like EA consider used game sales equivalent to piracy, it's hard to get behind them.

Robsavillo
March 15, 2011

[quote]the morality of providing the same support for second-hand copies[/quote]

I just don't understand this sentiment. I'm not saying that you've expressed this idea, but there's a clearly conflicting message sent to consumers with this practice of charging second-hand purchasers an additional fee for services provided for free with the initial purchase of the game.

I don't know where "morality" fits into this, but I've always been told the justification that publishers are businesses, so they can't provide services to people who didn't buy the game "directly" from them (even though we buy games from an intermediary in the form of retailers). But in practical terms, the publisher has promised those services [i]with a copy[/i] of the game. Why wouldn't those services transfer with the transfer of ownership? For an analogy, valid car warranties [i]do[/i] transfer to a second buyer.

Now we get the bait-and-swtich; where we've previously been conditioned to expect online services tied to a copy (or serial key), now we're told that such services are tied to a personal account with the company. This represents a loss of value for the consumer, since you can no longer transfer these services with the sale of your game.

In the end, practices like this lessen the monetary worth of games as a whole, yet publishers insist on continually raising prices. I believe this will ultimately be self-defeating.

Default_picture
March 15, 2011

I can see both sides. On the one hand, the secondhand market does not represent a direct sale for the developer. As you mentioned, publishers are businesses, and they're not neccesarily obligated to provide the same services to every user. I say "user" because technically, the used game purchaser is not a "customer", at least for that particular sale. Like it or not, that's how the developers see it.

On the other hand, online play is undoubtedly an advertised feature, and that should transcend the nature of the purchase. When Sony removed "Other OS" support, thereby disabling the ability to program in Linux, they removed an advertised feature. I've previously expressed my opposition to this.

Default_picture
March 15, 2011

Rob Savillo: Where pretentiousness and Demon's Souls collide.

Me
March 15, 2011

I can't get angry over the idea of having to buy new to play online. Video games aren't bread, water, or medicine. They're luxury items. If I don't like how a particular publisher's products work, I'll simply stop buying them. With the plethora of available platforms and titles, it's not like finding another game to fill the niche is difficult.

The only reason Online Pass upsets me is when I think that core content is intentionally held back in order to serve as "free" DLC, but I don't think that online play is content. It's a service, IMHO. So, yes, you have to pay for the service. And honestly, if you're a serious sports gamer, you're not waiting three months for the price to go down, because all your other, serious sports gaming friends are all jumping ship from the old title to the new yearly iteration the day or week it gets released.

When NHL 13 comes out, my whole team will have it on day one. Why are we going to waste time padding stats on the old game when we need to put those stats and wins towards improving our players in the new game, and learning new mechanics or functions, or otherwise staying competitive?

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.