EA Locks out Multiplayer.

[sacka]

EA Sports is going after the used game market.

Starting with the release of Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11 on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, the publisher will introduce a new Online Pass, a one-time registration code included with each brand new copy of the game. The code allows players to access "online services, features and bonus content."

Those who purchase the game used can buy an Online Pass for $10 or sign up for a free 7-day trial. The pass will be implemented for NCAA Football 11, NHL 11, Madden NFL 11, NBA 11, FIFA 11, and EA Sports MMA as well. The pass offers different features for each title, however, players will not have access to basic multiplayer features if purchased used.

FAQ http://www.easports.com/onlinepass

What do you guys think?
And i guess the big question is.. HOW MANY COMPANIES WILL FOLLOW ?

 

[kaysee]

EA Sports is going after the used game market.


FAQ http://www.easports.com/onlinepass

What do you guys think?
And i guess the big question is.. HOW MANY COMPANIES WILL FOLLOW ?

Personally, I don't mind it.

 

[coke_zero]

what a bunch of assholes.

 

[Maddhew]

how many games 18 months + still have a huge online presence? If the game is good enough then there will be a sequel that has superseeded it.

Personally i wouldnt buy a game 2nd hand that was less than 12 months old unless i was getting it for less than $45 and it was still 90+ new

 

[Kerrby]

Ridiculous. Horrible move by EA, especially when people are on their side now after everyone hating Activision.

 

[HSSB]

Seems pretty stupid, won't really harm me though as I don't really buy many games and don't buy used games (only have 11 games after 8 months of having a PS3)

 

[Gazza_11]

This whole pay to play online everywhere thing is starting to annoy me :/

 

[Kerrby]

This whole pay to play online everywhere thing is starting to annoy me :/

Thank Micro$oft for charging people to play online .

 

[Saint KFC]

Wow.

 

[Gazza_11]

Thank Micro$oft for charging people to play online .

Yup they started the whole thing with Xbox Live right?

Does this apply to PC Gaming as well, or just the consoles?

 

[Noppo]

This has nothing to do with Microsoft. Even if XBL was free, publishers and developers were still going to come down this path so they can at least make some money from a "sale" that they don't receive money from, because they dont receive any money from used game sales at all.

And I don't see why everyone's raging in the first place. Say you buy a used game that usually retails for $100 and you get it for the usual price of $20-$40. You're saving, potentially, up to $80 and your money goes straight into the store you buy it from. Now say that it was an EA game and you have to pay $10. Now you've saved $70 and you're still complaining that you're helping to support a service that normally you wouldn't pay for?

[YOUTUBE]K7RRnuMKuEs[/YOUTUBE]
Skip to 2:40 (unless you want to hear talk about WW2 games) since I believe what he's talking about is relevant here, even if it is in $US. Talking about the pricing of games and where all the money goes from a sale.

 

[raffrox]

Live is a quality service and I don't mind paying for it.

EA are just being greedy. You got your cash when you first sold the game.

 

[Kerrby]

Wow at using Michael Pachter for your argument.

Michael Pachter of all people.

 

[HBK619]

I'm pretty much with Noppo on this. The only issue I can see is the widespread move to bring this to ALL games and then even have it that new games could potentially cause this too. You'd have to think that XBL users would be pissed having basically 3 avenues of payment to actually play a game online (internet provider, XBL membership and now this). It's a bit rough in that respect.

I can however see exactly why they're doing this and it's simply to weed out retailers undercutting publishers by selling pre-owned titles at inflated prices. It was revealed not too long ago that the majority of retailers pretty much only make money from pre-owned games and publishers obviously don't like this. If there's really someone to blame, it's the retailers who are undercutting publishers. Maybe they should be reaching out to publishers to give them SOMETHING of the profits they make from pre-owned games.

Again though as Noppo said. If you're buying a pre-owned game in the first place you're saving a fair amount of money, so $10-$15 on top is what you'll just have to add when/if you buy that pre-owned title.

Also last of all, use the internet if you want a new game for cheap. Facts are that if you're getting a game pre-owned it will generally be for a fair amount cheaper than that of a new title and if you look around on the net you'll get a brand new title for about the same than if you were to get that pre-owned one.

BTW Kerrby, while Pachter is very average at a lot of things, the one thing he would know for sure is how publishers/devs/retailers make money from the sold games as THAT is a part of his job.

 

[Noppo]

EA are just being greedy. You got your cash when you first sold the game.

The thing is though that they only get money from that first sale. So when it gets resold, used, then EA gets $0 and the money goes straight into the store that you bought it from.

Wow at using Michael Pachter for your argument.

Michael Pachter of all people.

Wasn't using him in my argument at all, and that section that I outlined wasn't argumentative (if you had bothered to watch it). I never mentioned him and what he said either, if you even read that. I simply linked that for general knowledge of how much money actually goes back to the developer and publisher.

 

[Kerrby]

BTW Kerrby, while Pachter is very average at a lot of things, the one thing he would know for sure is how publishers/devs/retailers make money from the sold games as THAT is a part of his job.

Very average at a lot of things is an understatement. The guy is an idiot.

Oh and he thinks US$10 isn't enough.

"Yes, I think it will become the norm at the major publishers, and think that EA is charging too little..."

Wasn't using him in my argument at all, and that section that I outlined wasn't argumentative (if you had bothered to watch it). I never mentioned him and what he said either, if you even read that. I simply linked that for general knowledge of how much money actually goes back to the developer and publisher.

It shouldn't matter. You don't understand why people are upset that they have to pay extra to get features that come with the game anyway. Remember the stink over the Resident Evil 5 DLC, where you had to pay money for a code that unlocks content already on the disc? It's disgraceful that EA are doing this.

What do you do if you lend the game to a friend? They have to go out and buy a US$10 code just to access the features.

Same situation if you rent the game.

 

[sacka]

Very average at a lot of things is an understatement. The guy is an idiot.

Oh and he thinks US$10 isn't enough.

"Yes, I think it will become the norm at the major publishers, and think that EA is charging too little..."



It shouldn't matter. You don't understand why people are upset that they have to pay extra to get features that come with the game anyway. Remember the stink over the Resident Evil 5 DLC, where you had to pay money for a code that unlocks content already on the disc? It's disgraceful that EA are doing this.

What do you do if you lend the game to a friend? They have to go out and buy a US$10 code just to access the features.

Same situation if you rent the game.

there is a 7 day free trial

 

[Kerrby]

there is a 7 day free trial

Well thank god that you can play what's on the disc for 7 days .

 

[sacka]

Well thank god that you can play what's on the disc for 7 days .

It was directed at your rental comment

 

[HBK619]

It shouldn't matter. You don't understand why people are upset that they have to pay extra to get features that come with the game anyway. Remember the stink over the Resident Evil 5 DLC, where you had to pay money for a code that unlocks content already on the disc? It's disgraceful that EA are doing this.

The difference being that EVERYONE get's cut out with that compared to those who want to save a few bucks with EA's system.

If you buy the game NEW you still get the online features.

In the end it comes down to whether you'll be able to buy the game new somewhere for cheaper than it is pre-owned plus the online 'tax' if you will. And I'd wager you'll be able to find it just as cheap brand new online.

What do you do if you lend the game to a friend? They have to go out and buy a US$10 code just to access the features.

Same situation if you rent the game.

Let's not go overboard. There are still tons of features offline to use, it's not like if you were to lend the game to a friend they'd not be able to play the game at all.

 

[raffrox]

The thing is though that they only get money from that first sale. So when it gets resold, used, then EA gets $0 and the money goes straight into the store that you bought it from.

quote]

As it should be. When I buy a second hand car I don't pay an extra $1000 to the original company that made the car.

What's next? Locking dvd's so you can only watch them 20 times or only on one dvd player?

People want something back for their cash and being able to play multiplayer should be a given.

 

[WhySoSerious]

Absolute joke. So now they are going to sell a product, only to charge you again (regulary at that) to use one of its features. Seriously where does it end? Its not just games aswell, its god damn everything!. Companies are doing everything possible to get more money on things that should be provided in the first place.

Remember reading something about Activision wanting to do a similar thing. So will that mean that if I want to play each of my games online I will have to pay an extra $10 monthly to its publisher on top of Xbox Live subscriptions etc? I guess that means games will not cost the typical $80-$100 now seeming your expected to pay extra now to use its features...

Hope that the companies that opt to go down this path get burned big time. They cant keep expecting their customers to fork out again and again on the same product. I couldnt give a stuff if they make $100 or $0 on that product being resold, you made your money when the game was released. Focus on making money on your next one rather than simply ripping people off.

 

[HBK619]

Absolute joke. So now they are going to sell a product, only to charge you again (regulary at that) to use one of its features. Seriously where does it end? Its not just games aswell, its god damn everything!. Companies are doing everything possible to get more money on things that should be provided in the first place.

Remember reading something about Activision wanting to do a similar thing. So will that mean that if I want to play each of my games online I will have to pay an extra $10 monthly to its publisher on top of Xbox Live subscriptions etc? I guess that means games will not cost the typical $80-$100 now seeming your expected to pay extra now to use its features...

Not quite. You only pay a fee if you haven't purchased the game brand new and obviously only if you want to.

It's a 1 time fee if you choose to pay it, if you buy the game brand new there is no fee at all (remember, "brand new" does not mean $100, you can always buy online or wait a few months for the price to go down).

The thing about Activision was them wanting to have a pay-to-play online scheme for COD in which you have an MMO like fee from month to month. Which I personally see as ridiculous as COD might be good, but it's certainly not the only great FPS title out there.

Sports games are different, you've got a maximum of about 3 companies bringing out a sports title for one individual sport and usually it's only 2. The quality is fairly transparent and the way I see it, is if you're going to purchase one of these titles, it will usually be day one or at least brand new.

Hope that the companies that opt to go down this path get burned big time. They cant keep expecting their customers to fork out again and again on the same product. I couldnt give a stuff if they make $100 or $0 on that product being resold, you made your money when the game was released. Focus on making money on your next one rather than simply ripping people off.

The problem comes down to the publisher just not making enough money to keep afloat. This is one of many last ditch efforts to keep the money on new games being purchased.

IMO EA Sports is really the only company that could really keep this offer up simply because their sports games (bar NBA and Madden maybe) are the leading games out of any sporting titles and the opposition is playing catch up much like EA were doing for so long. Also, since they have their titles come out annually it means that they've found that people are opting for the pre-owned versions of the year before's title which would offer more reason for EA to go, "well if you purchase that one used, you won't be getting the same online services as this years brand new copy."

I will say, that as a person who has bought into the pre-owned fad and purchased a number of those games it would be fairly annoying if this happened as it would make you think when EB have one of their "MASSIVE PRE-OWNED SALE'S" like they have on right now. But for the amount of titles I have purchased pre-owned, the online's have either been deserted or crap anyway.

 

[larkis]

Nothing new with EA to be honest - they have been trying to squeeze so much extra dollars out of every title.

I'm an NFL fanboy, buying both Madden 10 and NCAA Football 10. Madden released a few extra features requesting about $20 to play games in oldish colours with throwback jearseys and the team builder feature that was in FIFA for the past few years (buy cards and build a team). NCAA just gave advantages to your 'dynasty'.

So really ... nothing new for them to screw over the consumer.

 

[RickSanchez]

Sorry guys. I am kinda slow. What is the direct point of this and what does it exactly mean.