73 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

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.

Yes it is. And it would be a perfectly valid business model for the company to follow, especially if you know that up front pre-sale. I can't say that would make them any money, especially if  no other car company follows that model, but they have the right to. But here's the problem: none of those people driving make the car company any money either. It's a question of "Will people pay for multiple cars? Or will they stop buying our products?"

In the case of cars, I'm more likely to shop around for someone who's willing to accomodate my desire to have multiple people able to drive my vehicle, especially since a car provides greater utility than a game. I'm less likely to care with something designed for SP  entertainment purposes, since the primary goal is for me to have fun, rather than others. If I buy ME3 new, which I plan to, EA gets what they want and I get the full product.

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.

Because they don't give a damn about people who aren't making them money, which is well within their rights. If you're buying new, you benefit EA. If you're buying used, you're worthless. Why shouldn't they be allowed to provide exclusive content, which encourages either new sales or requires a used sale to pay extra for the total experience?  You paid Gamestop for the used game, not EA. Gamestop made money off that purchase, not EA. When they make money off used sales, then you can start complaining about products sold.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 octobre 2011 - 05:05 .

[Il Divo]

Shepard the Leper wrote...


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.

It still matters because it's less profit for the company.

Scenario A: You buy a game brand new, play online, then sell it to Gamestop, who sells it to someone else.

Scenario B: You and another person both buy new copies of a game.

In Scenario A, EA makes one sale and both individuals get to play the entire game, in addition to having access to multiplayer content . From EA's perspective, player two is essentially playing for free. It doesn't matter that you weren't able to do it at the same time because your desire to play the product was gone. In Scenario B, they make two sales. Which scenario is more profitable?  

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 octobre 2011 - 05:19 .

[Dragoonlordz]

I honestly think the defence of this policy on grounds of they need money and the millions and billions they "choose to waste" on being ripped off by accepting overcharging services such as CGI and voice actors aswell as I am sure not poorly paid employees to begin with. Instead forcing the extra fee on the customer because you just want more and more and more money instead of paying less for the overpriced elements. They shouldn't be tackling used sales they should be confronting the (gaming version of greedy bankers) suppliers of components/elements and VO.

Way I see it is those elements that are seriously over priced they put in games and actor fees etc is a bit like one year CGI specialist wants 10k for work next year they want 50k for same amount of effort and that extra 40k is being forced on customers and used game sales when in reality its the fault of the publishers allowing people who design elements and VO to charge more and more each year for same level of work. This is my opinoin and probably is not popular one but sorry I think these designers and actors think they are worth A list prices and wages when they are B list quality, the same quality they were the year before and the year before that but all of sudden they decided they are worth 10 times what was paid for same level of work as previous years.

The way some people talk on here they seem to be making out EA and such publishers etc to be a starving poverty striken person(s) in desporate need of funding for simply food and bare essentials when they made between 4 and 4.5 billion dollars last year of which most of that was "wasted" on self serving pompus actors and specialists who think they are worth more than they really are and get away with charging whatever magical random number they pick out of the sky.

Sorry sounds bit harsh but there comes a point when the way to make money is not keep raising the price on the consumer but cut costs in production because it cannot go on forever raising price customer pays without making cutbacks on price pay for development. A person who gets paid 15k one year should not get paid 30-50k the next year for the exact same level of work. Keep them on 15-20k or shop around for best deal in who does the work or what systems and then profits would shoot up rather than charging the customer more and more to cover those costs.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 18 octobre 2011 - 05:29 .

[naughty99]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I honestly think the defence of this policy on grounds of they need money and the millions and billions they "choose to waste" on being ripped off by accepting overcharging services such as CGI and voice actors aswell as I am sure not poorly paid employees to begin with. Instead forcing the extra fee on the customer because you just want more and more and more money instead of paying less for the overpriced elements. They shouldn't be tackling used sales they should be confronting the (gaming version of greedy bankers) suppliers of components/elements and VO.

Way I see it is those elements that are seriously over priced they put in games and actor fees etc is a bit like one year CGI specialist wants 10k for work next year they want 50k for same amount of effort and that extra 40k is being blamed on customers and used game sales when in reality its the fualt of the publishers allowing people who deisng elements and VO to charge more and more each year for same level of work. This is my opinoin and probably is not popular one but sorry I think these designers and actors think they are worth A list prices and wages when they are B list quality, the same quality they were the year before and the year before that but all of sudden they decided they are worth 10 times what was paid for same level of work as previous years.

The way some people talk on here they seem to be making out EA and such publishers etc to be a starving poverty striken person(s) in desporate need of funding for simply food and bare essentials when they made between 4 and 4.5 billion dollars last year of which most of that was "wasted" on self serving pompus actors and specialists who think they are worth more than they really are and get away with charging whatever magical random number they pick out of the sky.

In my view, the amount of profit a publisher makes on each sale does not appear to be particularly relevant to this discussion.  

Regardless of whether any particular product or service is massively profitable or only slightly profitable, the primary goal of every viable corporation is to generate more profit and greater value for its shareholders. If that is not the primary goal, then the company in question is not going to last very long.

Modifié par naughty99, 18 octobre 2011 - 05:33 .

[Shepard the Leper]

Il Divo wrote...

It still matters because it's less profit for the company.

Scenario A: You buy a game brand new, play online, then sell it to Gamestop, who sells it to someone else.

Scenario B: You and another person both buy new copies of a game.

In Scenario A, EA makes one sale and both individuals get to play the entire game, in addition to having access to multiplayer content . From EA's perspective, player two is essentially playing for free. It doesn't matter that you weren't able to do it at the same time because your desire to play the product was gone. In Scenario B, they make two sales. Which scenario is more profitable?  

No that's completely wrong. EA sold a product/service which include an online component. Whoever buys that product has paid for the completely package and they are free to sell that completely package to anyone. Without the online-pass-crap only one person can go online and play. There is no reason why the next person should pay for something the original purchaser already paid for. You're not going to ask one of your friends who's coming over to watch one of your movies to pay Warner Bro or whomever first before they can sit down and enjoy the movie. Obviously Warner Bro wouldn't mind if your friends did so - but I think there won't be many friends coming over to watch a movie at your place

[Dragoonlordz]

naughty99 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I honestly think the defence of this policy on grounds of they need money and the millions and billions they "choose to waste" on being ripped off by accepting overcharging services such as CGI and voice actors aswell as I am sure not poorly paid employees to begin with. Instead forcing the extra fee on the customer because you just want more and more and more money instead of paying less for the overpriced elements. They shouldn't be tackling used sales they should be confronting the (gaming version of greedy bankers) suppliers of components/elements and VO.

Way I see it is those elements that are seriously over priced they put in games and actor fees etc is a bit like one year CGI specialist wants 10k for work next year they want 50k for same amount of effort and that extra 40k is being blamed on customers and used game sales when in reality its the fualt of the publishers allowing people who deisng elements and VO to charge more and more each year for same level of work. This is my opinoin and probably is not popular one but sorry I think these designers and actors think they are worth A list prices and wages when they are B list quality, the same quality they were the year before and the year before that but all of sudden they decided they are worth 10 times what was paid for same level of work as previous years.

The way some people talk on here they seem to be making out EA and such publishers etc to be a starving poverty striken person(s) in desporate need of funding for simply food and bare essentials when they made between 4 and 4.5 billion dollars last year of which most of that was "wasted" on self serving pompus actors and specialists who think they are worth more than they really are and get away with charging whatever magical random number they pick out of the sky.

In my view, the amount of profit a publisher makes on each sale does not appear to be particularly relevant to this discussion.  

Regardless of whether any particular product or service is massively profitable or only slightly profitable, the primary goal of every viable corporation is to generate more profit and greater value for its shareholders. If that is not the primary goal, then the company in question is not going to last very long.

It is relevant when brought up profits. Plus my thread I decide whats relevant.

There are multiple ways to make profit and the two major ones are raising price or cutting costs, cutting costs is what I think should take priority imho given how much elements designers and actors are charging has shot right up and way over value for money in past few years. Same principle applied to Square when made Spirits movie the CGi artists they "chose" to use charged 400+ dollars an hour which is why Square struggled to make any profit regardless of how many sold the price paid in designing it was way too high and Square had to be bailed out by Disney.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 18 octobre 2011 - 06:01 .

[Il Divo]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

No that's completely wrong. EA sold a product/service which include an online component. Whoever buys that product has paid for the completely package and they are free to sell that completely package to anyone. Without the online-pass-crap only one person can go online and play. There is no reason why the next person should pay for something the original purchaser already paid for. You're not going to ask one of your friends who's coming over to watch one of your movies to pay Warner Bro or whomever first before they can sit down and enjoy the movie. Obviously Warner Bro wouldn't mind if your friends did so -

I'm not going to ask them; I personally don't give a damn. But Warner Bros might ask them, if they think they can get away with it.  

You're arguing entirely from the viewpoint of entitlement. You are entitled only to what is agreed upon. If Nintendo asks that I pay for four copies of Super Smash Bros. Brawl so four of my friends can play along with me, I'm simply not going to buy it; local multiplayer is a critical component of that game and I don't have a desire to pay $240 for a four player video game, when there's plenty of other games available with four player for $60.
 
On the other hand, if they do that with Grand Theft Auto, I have much less reason to care, since my express intentions really is the single player. My mentality is not "Let me buy this game so my buddies can play it!", but merely so I can play it. In that case, my demand for the product probably won't go down, despite the (somewhat) diminished value of the product.  

If you want a fun example, imagine you're at an amusement park and are finished for the day. When you leave the park, you can't give the rest of your time to someone else simply because you're done. The park still loses profits as a result. The problem is that if they allow it, the demands of both you and the person who enters in your place are satisifed, while the park only gets half the profits.

That's the relevant point with the online example. Only one person may be online at a time, but you (the person donating the game) don't want to be online anymore; your desire was satisfied, while the other person's desire is also satisfied without paying the producer.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 octobre 2011 - 05:55 .

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

EA doesn't give a rat's butt what I think. I stopped buying EA games years ago.

[naughty99]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

EA doesn't give a rat's butt what I think. I stopped buying EA games years ago.

By "years ago" I take it you mean at some point in 2010, after the release of Mass Effect 2?

[wolfsite]

Love how people keep saying it's EA's policy like they alone are doing it (I kind of doubt they even started it).

However from a business perspective it makes sense to maximize profits since before this the creators or publishers of a game made no money on used games sales.  Some Developers have stated they lose up to 2 - 3 million on used games sales if it's a popular title so you can't fault them for trying to cut that down.

Hell the EB/Gamestop in my area normally buys games for like $5-10 and resells them for about $45 (I have seen instances where they mark it p to the same price as the new game but put the used copy in more noticable areas of the store to sell it).  So Gamestop makes 100% of that profit on a product they did not even make but just really undercut a consumer on it.  Also remember that on retail copirs the developer/Publisher does not get the full amount of the price you bought it at since portions of that go to the retail store, the wholesale supplier, cost for shipping and so on.  I have seen some break down guids that showed the original developer/Publisher only get about $25 of a product costing $49-$59 and with the rising costs of video game development it it understandable to find a way to increaes profit.... thankfully with this case they didn't raise the price of the product new.

If anything your discussion should be more on the cost of digital sales since they product is still $49-$59 but there is no physical product to make, no shipper, no retailler, and only in some cases like selling via Steam, XBoxlive, PSN there is a Middleman to pay a royalty for use of the service.


Hell I still remember a while ago when second hand sellers would spoil the endings of games for people to try to get them to sell games back earlier at very low cost so they could get used copies out while the game was still in it's first week ori so of sales with an even higher markup.

[KLUME777]

I despise project $10 dollar. For B3, me and my brother will play the same copy on the PS3, and one of us will be forced to pay $10 for an online pass even though its brand new because we have separate accounts.

[Shepard the Leper]

Il Divo wrote...

You're arguing entirely from the viewpoint of entitlement. You are entitled only to what is agreed upon.

With a catch. Any agreement that contradicts the law (of the country in question) is worthless. EA can put anything they want in their "agreement". They can demand us to dance butt-naked in the moonlight and ritually sacrifice a goat before installing one of their games. Nobody is stopping them. But nobody has to comply either.

Most entertainment companies - for example - consider ripping music or movies a violation to the sale-agreement. They are free to have that opinion, but there are many countries where it's legit to rip music and movies (for personal use only). Obviously the entertainment industry has the choice not to publish material in those countries because the law doesn't match their opinion about the matter.

If you want a fun example, imagine you're at an amusement park and are finished for the day. When you leave the park, you can't give the rest of your time to someone else simply because you're done. The park still loses profits as a result. The problem is that if they allow it, the demands of both you and the person who enters in your place are satisifed, while the park only gets half the profits.

The real question would be whether or not it's actually bad for profits. The new person might very well buy food, drinks and souvenirs - stuff that couldn't have been sold otherwise. This is also going to bite EA in the arse in the long run. The products they sell will become worthless, they don't have any lasting (economic) value. People who buy the latest games, play them for a few weeks and then sell the game for a decent price to invest in new releases, are not likely going to double their gaming budget. Which results in either fewer newly released games being sold or they wait til those games will be on sale months or years later. Both are bad for business.

That's the relevant point with the online example. Only one person may be online at a time, but you (the person donating the game) don't want to be online anymore; your desire was satisfied, while the other person's desire is also satisfied without paying the producer.

Desire and satisfaction have nothing to do with a business transaction. They are also subjective; and when someone cannot sell their games anymore, which they usually do to help finance a new game. They might very well continue playing the game because of the lack of alternatives. Then there's the PR side of the story - more people playing your (in this case EA's) games are potentially new customers.

The point I try to make is about EA doing nothing whilst asking (demanding) money in return. That's an "illegal" transaction b/c the law demands something in return. It would be interesting when someone goes to court questioning the "online-pass". There will be many judges who will be wondering why EA demands money for a service which has been payed for already.

[Shepard the Leper]

KLUME777 wrote...

I despise project $10 dollar. For B3, me and my brother will play the same copy on the PS3, and one of us will be forced to pay $10 for an online pass even though its brand new because we have separate accounts.

No need for that. Just create a new account for the both of you.

Anyone who plans to sell one of their games in the future would do well to create a new account (plus an email account if necessary) for everyone of them. When you're done, you can sell the game + (email) account(s) to someone else - who can change the password(s), log in and play.

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

naughty99 wrote...

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

EA doesn't give a rat's butt what I think. I stopped buying EA games years ago.

By "years ago" I take it you mean at some point in 2010, after the release of Mass Effect 2?

When EA first bought Bio I hoped that by continuing to buy Bio games I could do my little part in helping them keep their independence. I was voting with my wallet, so to speak.

What a frigging waste of time that turned out to be. I don't even like FPS games, but I was just trying to help out and now I feel like a total schmuck for wasting my money. Bio is already turning into an EA crap mill.

ME2 was the last Bio game I will ever buy.

Wait, that's not true.

Bio is dead. It's just a lable on a box now. ME2 will the last EA game ever I buy.

[wolfsite]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

naughty99 wrote...

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

EA doesn't give a rat's butt what I think. I stopped buying EA games years ago.

By "years ago" I take it you mean at some point in 2010, after the release of Mass Effect 2?

When EA first bought Bio I hoped that by continuing to buy Bio games I could do my little part in helping them keep their independence. I was voting with my wallet, so to speak.

What a frigging waste of time that turned out to be. I don't even like FPS games, but I was just trying to help out and now I feel like a total schmuck for wasting my money. Bio is already turning into an EA crap mill.

ME2 was the last Bio game I will ever buy.

Wait, that's not true.

Bio is dead. It's just a lable on a box now. ME2 will the last EA game ever I buy.

Then why are you still here if you obviously have no reason to be?

Modifié par wolfsite, 21 octobre 2011 - 11:55 .

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

[Unnecessary insults removed]

Modifié par JohnEpler, 22 octobre 2011 - 05:54 .

[John Epler]

If you aren't able to be civil, then you -are- going to be taking a vacation from the forums. Remember that being dissatisfied with the company does not give you carte blanche to say whatever you want on their forums - we still ask for civility, and if you're unable to comply then I suggest you take your forum posting elsewhere.

Modifié par JohnEpler, 22 octobre 2011 - 05:55 .

[Esbatty]

JohnEpler wrote...

[Unnecessary insults removed]

I would love to know what comprises a "necessary insult". Srsly.

[KingDan97]

Don't know if it's already been stated(as I'm just breezing through this thread and don't particularly feel like reading past the first post), but most games that come with online passes(a.k.a. the only things that detract from the game for you not having them, as opposed to the 10$ dlcs like Zaeed, Shale and Kasumi) come with a trial period that can be activated on each gamertag only once, normally for anywhere from 3 days to a week.

So there goes the rental argument...

[Bogsnot1]

Esbatty wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

[Unnecessary insults removed]

I would love to know what comprises a "necessary insult". Srsly. 

System requirements: Microsoft Windows.

[Dragoonlordz]

KingDan97 wrote...

Don't know if it's already been stated(as I'm just breezing through this thread and don't particularly feel like reading past the first post), but most games that come with online passes(a.k.a. the only things that detract from the game for you not having them, as opposed to the 10$ dlcs like Zaeed, Shale and Kasumi) come with a trial period that can be activated on each gamertag only once, normally for anywhere from 3 days to a week.

So there goes the rental argument...

I have never known any to give such a trial period, could you list some that 100% do have such a thing because maybe I just haven't used those specific ones. In fact my friend who rents most of time says every single time came across such [DLC] AND [passes] whoever rented first uses code and links to their account then whoever rents after cannot use it at all. So I don't know where your trial period idea thing comes from.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 22 octobre 2011 - 06:00 .

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

wolfsite wrote...

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

naughty99 wrote...

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

EA doesn't give a rat's butt what I think. I stopped buying EA games years ago.

By "years ago" I take it you mean at some point in 2010, after the release of Mass Effect 2?

When EA first bought Bio I hoped that by continuing to buy Bio games I could do my little part in helping them keep their independence. I was voting with my wallet, so to speak.

What a frigging waste of time that turned out to be. I don't even like FPS games, but I was just trying to help out and now I feel like a total schmuck for wasting my money. Bio is already turning into an EA crap mill.

ME2 was the last Bio game I will ever buy.

Wait, that's not true.

Bio is dead. It's just a lable on a box now. ME2 will the last EA game ever I buy.

Then why are you still here if you obviously have no reason to be?

Look at my sig. I have lots of good, pre-EA reasons to be here. NWN, NWN2, BG, BG2, DA:O...

Just because the new stuff is crap doesn't mean the communities built in the halcyon days of yore, before RPGs became "Less Relevant", aren't worth preserving. Quite the contrary. It makes them all the more important.

Modifié par UrkOfGreyhawk, 29 octobre 2011 - 07:28 .

[Il Divo]

jreezy wrote...

I just realized how off the title of this thread is. How is EA profiting from used game sales with an online pass?

EA doesn't make anything off used game sales, as the profits only go to the retailer. Online pass is designed so that customers who purchase used games won't have full access to all the game's content, unless they also buy an online pass. In the case of ME3, some might consider multiplayer a critical feature, which will only be available with new purchases, for example.