73 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

Using this charge $10+ for online features in all their new games including I would assume Biowares up and coming titles, I have to wonder what impact will have on rental market given if rent game and only have for 7 days to try yet everyone bar the first person to rent gets locked out of online play say in BF3 or such titles of which if want to try the online you have to fork out $10 to EA on top of rental price, whether this will not only have impact on used sales but major impact on rentals too. I'm curious how LoveFilm, Blockbuster and such places are going to deal with it...

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 17 octobre 2011 - 06:05 .

[naughty99]

I think it's an interesting idea. However, it all comes down to the execution.

Previously, I observed Blockbuster cannibalizing sales of new DVDs by dumping massive quantities of used revshare DVDs at low price points within a few weeks after street date. The result was that the perceived value of new DVDs was eroded and the price points for new sell-through DVD dropped in a downward spiral.

In most countries around the world, the sell-through DVD market has completely collapsed except for big tentpole studio films.

If there is some extra content that is only available through buying a new game or paying for a license of some sort, if that content is considered valuable enough to consumers, perhaps it will result in some pirates paying for legitimate licenses.

I would not be surprised if within the next few years publishers stop selling packaged media altogether.

Modifié par naughty99, 17 octobre 2011 - 09:59 .

[Cutlass Jack]

I see no problem with it. They should get some profit off the games they make. And they aren't the only company to do this. So while I know its hip to point fingers at EA for coming up with some nefarious new scheme to make money, its really not true.

As long as such things are included with the game normally and the games feature offline content as well, I think its a smart plan.

[termokanden]

I'm not 100% happy with it, but it's better than not letting you play the game offline. Much, much better. I take you can get your online content and then go offline if you wish?

Of course it does mean that you no longer buy a box that contains your game. It only contains part of it, and the rest you don't even own. But that has already begun anyway. A game isn't a physical object you own anymore.

Modifié par termokanden, 17 octobre 2011 - 11:38 .

[TwistedComplex]

greengoron89 wrote...

It's not going to go over well with the consumers and will blow up in EA's face, causing them to lose even more money than if they had just left well enough alone.

Watch and see.

People kept saying that for the past 5 years. Has it REALLY happened? Be honest with yourself

[TwistedComplex]

PS, EA is paying for the servers so yes, it's well within their rights

[KenKenpachi]

We all got to make money somehow, and if Renters want to play online for a game they truely don't mean to buy, well no skin off my teeth.

[Il Divo]

greengoron89 wrote...

It's not going to go over well with the consumers and will blow up in EA's face, causing them to lose even more money than if they had just left well enough alone.

Watch and see.

What consumers exactly? EA doesn't make money off used game sales. I can certainly understand the mentality; provide content which can only be obtained from new copies, which encourages gamers to buy new.

[naughty99]

greengoron89 wrote...

I just think the whole crusade against used games is a bit over-the-top. The whole thing seemed to just come out of nowhere, and now all sorts of people are clamoring on about a business that's been in operation for decades now and act as if buying a used game is a cardinal sin.

At any rate, no one is going to stop buying used games in the near future - online features or not. I don't play games online 90% of the time anyway, so it makes no difference to me.

From my understanding, the trend seems to be toward providing additional content for buyers of new copies.

For example, RAGE has a few additional sewer missions only available if you purchase the game new. If you buy a used copy, you would need to purchase these missions separately. In the case of Arkham City, buying a new copy unlocks a playable Catwoman character.

Modifié par naughty99, 18 octobre 2011 - 01:45 .

[Homebound]

u know, EA would probably stop trying to shove their flag up our ass if we just bought their games new. actually no, they'll still do this even if we did.

[addiction21]

I have no problem with it. If its a new game I want I get it. If its a game thats allready been released... well I always do a bit of looking around to find information on it and I can normally buy/ebay a new copy of a game for cheaper then a used copy from a brick and morter store.

I say let a company do what they need to do to make a buck, and now a days we consumers have far more options to get a deal then ever before.

Modifié par addiction21, 18 octobre 2011 - 02:45 .

[Zanallen]

Blockbuster usually removes the online pass from the box and keeps it for when they sell the game used at a later date.

[RPGamer13]

EA is the only company that does this and I realize it was pointed out.

Mortal Kombat has the same thing.

[naughty99]

modjospinster wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

u know, EA would probably stop trying to shove their flag up our ass if we just bought their games new. actually no, they'll still do this even if we did.

lol, for real. this doesn't seem to be a problem with auto manufacturers.

"Hey there buddy, I see you got this car used. I'm just going to go ahead and disable the radio, cooling and heating, and the windshield wipers. Don't worry, all you have to do is pay for (car manufacturer's name) Ultimate Pass, and you get all these features included!"

Perhaps it makes more sense to consider the multiplayer as a sort of a service or a free DLC given as an incentive to people who buy the game new. You can buy the game used and play the hell out of the single-player if you like, but the MP is going to cost extra unless you buy the game new. 

Even though some new cars come with a certain number of free months use of services such as OnStar, LoJack, XM Radio, etc., if you buy the car used, you have to set up your own account.

If you feel the initial retail price is too high at release date, you can always wait 12 months and buy it on sale instead of buying a used copy (or simply consider the price of a used copy + $10 or whatever the MP access costs).

Modifié par naughty99, 18 octobre 2011 - 09:11 .

[Shepard the Leper]

Il Divo wrote...

What consumers exactly? EA doesn't make money off used game sales. I can certainly understand the mentality; provide content which can only be obtained from new copies, which encourages gamers to buy new.

LOL. What you're saying is like a car company installs a system in their cars which automatically triggers when the car changes ownership. All of a sudden that second hand car can only reach a 10 MPH top-speed. The one who bought the car has to contact the manufacturer, pay a couple thousand bucks to be able to use the damn vehicle properly.

It's completely insane bull. Please give one reason why EA or whatever company should make money off products they already sold. It would be different when one cannot "buy" products anymore, but is forced to rent instead. If I buy a house it's mine, if I rent a house it isn't. EA wants us to buy a house (without ownership) and pay rent at the same time - no deal.

[Veex]

Shepard the Leper wrote...
It's completely insane bull. Please give one reason why EA or whatever company should make money off products they already sold. It would be different when one cannot "buy" products anymore, but is forced to rent instead. If I buy a house it's mine, if I rent a house it isn't. EA wants us to buy a house (without ownership) and pay rent at the same time - no deal.

No, its like buying a house and then expecting the previous owner's cable and internet service to still be in use without changing hands. The online components of BF3 and ME3 are hosted by EA's servers and require constant upkeep, it makes complete sense for them to charge on used copies.

[J0HNL3I]

Buy a new copy, problem solved

[Dragoonlordz]

Veex wrote...

Shepard the Leper wrote...
It's completely insane bull. Please give one reason why EA or whatever company should make money off products they already sold. It would be different when one cannot "buy" products anymore, but is forced to rent instead. If I buy a house it's mine, if I rent a house it isn't. EA wants us to buy a house (without ownership) and pay rent at the same time - no deal.

No, its like buying a house and then expecting the previous owner's cable and internet service to still be in use without changing hands. The online components of BF3 and ME3 are hosted by EA's servers and require constant upkeep, it makes complete sense for them to charge on used copies.

But is it EA hosting servers or is it like a lot of games specifically noticable on 360 that most are player hosted.

The way I think of it is simply when you buy a car or dish washer or towels in fact anything that is not digital media movies, games and cds, you don't when sell that car or other items then go on and pay Toyota or Ford or Dyson and extra fee. Which is odd that games and digital media seems to be the only industries that charge you this extra fee (excluding goverments). I'm not a big multiplayer person and don't tend to play games online these days or even rent games which is the issue mentioned when created thread about your paying to rent plus then sems you also have to pay extra for features that after rental period ends have no use for... Example.

You prefer to rent games before buying as a lot of companies seem to not put out demos these days renting is best way to know if want to buy a game, reviews and such generally are biased one way or the other.

So you rent a game lets say for 360.

You have to pay M$ for using their online service.

You have to pay the rental retailer to use product for x amount of days say $5-10 for a week.

You also then if want to try and see if like online or even with regard to some games single player content locked out until pay this extra fee. You have to pay for this extra fee on top which is another $10.

Rental ends so game gets sent back.

If like game then you have to go out and pay again to buy game either new $40 or used lets say $25.

If used you still have to pay this online fee all over again even though you just paid for it on the rental copy (if used thats another $10) on top of the $10 you already paid to use it on the copy rented, negating probably any saving made from buying used in first place.

Seems somewhat dubious and mean towards those who rent titles prior to deciding if wish to buy in which case in which case if tend to rent a game you end up minimum paying more than if went out and bought the thing in first place.

Rented for week and not bought copy = $15-20

Rented for week and bought new copy = $55-60

Rented for week and bought used copy = $40-45

It's like gambling now $20 to see if like a game even if never buy due to not liking it seems bit high. With if rented having to pay same if not more for used copy than if bought the game new in first place. Problem is that companies are now locking single player content too not just online you have to remember aka Batman new game.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 18 octobre 2011 - 04:53 .

[naughty99]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

So you rent a game lets say for 360.

You have to pay M$ for using their service.

You have to pay the rental retailer to use product for x amount of days say $5-10 for a week.

You also then if want to try and see if like online or even with regard to some games single player content locked out until pay this extra fee. You have to pay for this extra fee on top which is another $10.

Rental ends so game gets sent back.

If like game then you have to go out and pay again to buy game either new $40 or used lets say $25.

If used you still have to pay this online fee all over again even though you just paid for it on the rental copy (if used thats another $10, negating probably any saving made from buying used in first place.

Seems somewhat dubious and mean towards those who rent titles prior to deciding if wish to buy in which case in which case if tend to rent a game you end up minimum paying more than if went out and bought the thing in first place.

Rented for week and not bought copy = $15-20

Rented for week and bought new copy = $55-60

Rented for week and bought used copy = $40-45

It's like gambling now $20 to see if like a game even if never buy due to not liking it seems bit high. With if rented having to pay same if not more for used copy than if bought the game new in first place. Problem is that companies are now locking single player content too now just online you have to remember aka Batman new game.

AFAIK, games are not rented on a revshare basis.

In other words, whatever retailer rents games simply buys X no. of copies from a wholesaler (out of which, EA makes a portion of the sales revenue, after deducting the retailer margin, wholesaler margin, manufacturing, shipping, MDS expenditure, trade ads, consumer ads, etc.), rents each copy out to consumers numerous times and then resells the used rental copies.

The game publisher only makes money from the initial sale, whether that copy is used for rental or sell-through. In this case, the publisher is not attempting to prevent games being rented, you can still rent a game and play the singleplayer content.

The multiplayer content is considered a bonus for those who either buy a game new or pay for the cost of the multiplayer, as a separate DLC. If you think you will enjoy playing ME3 multiplayer for an extended period of time, it's probably a better idea to simply buy the game instead of renting it. 

Modifié par naughty99, 18 octobre 2011 - 04:58 .

[Shepard the Leper]

Veex wrote...

Shepard the Leper wrote...
It's completely insane bull. Please give one reason why EA or whatever company should make money off products they already sold. It would be different when one cannot "buy" products anymore, but is forced to rent instead. If I buy a house it's mine, if I rent a house it isn't. EA wants us to buy a house (without ownership) and pay rent at the same time - no deal.

No, its like buying a house and then expecting the previous owner's cable and internet service to still be in use without changing hands. The online components of BF3 and ME3 are hosted by EA's servers and require constant upkeep, it makes complete sense for them to charge on used copies.

No, that's BS.

For EA it doesn't matter if I play online every day over a one year period or I play one month, sell my copy to a friend who plays the other 11 months. Server load remains the same, there is no reason whatsover to claim more money. Things would be different if I can sell my copy and still be able to play online regardless. Then the copy sold by me would add another user. If that was the case EA would have a point. As it is, they don't.