73 réponses à ce sujet

[Chromie]

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?

When a person buys a used game the publisher makes no money from that purchase. With the online pass certain features will be locked because basically that what its for. If you buy a game new EA doesn't charge you for the locked content but if you buy it used and someone decided to use the online pass keycode you need to buy a new code directly from EA and that's how they profit from used game sales.

[Il Divo]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

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.

Sure, but good luck explaining why EA is required to provide those used game customers with that content. Anyone else is utterly worthless, for their purposes.

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.

You've already made several critical assumptions in your argument, including the idea that a substantial gamers will not buy a product if they're unable to sell it back. As another point, Gamestop, to my knowledge, has not stopped allowing gamers to sell their purchases back. As long as that practice remains, this argument doesn't work.

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.

Economics is based entirely around this concept of supply and demand. Publishers publish games under the impression that there are customers who have a desire to play these games. You pay for the game, you get to satisfy that want. Used game sales circumvent this, because multiple customers are having their demands fulfilled, while EA doesn't make anything off those profits.

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.

You didn't pay EA for the service, you paid gamestop. There was nothing illegal about the transaction; you got everything which gamestop provided you, which is still the majority of the experience. It doesn't matter that only one of you owns the game at a time; you are both having your demands satisfied. Person A doesn't want the game any more, as they're finished with it.

Modifié par Il Divo, 31 octobre 2011 - 04:48 .

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

No. That doesn't bear close inspection. To continue your own example: Person A is no longer entitled to play the game even though it's been payed for. If EA is accepting further payments for a service or product that has already been paid for then by extension Person A should be able to retain the right to use the product or service in question.

Even by your standard EA is being payed twice, once for the new product and again for a service or product that has already been rendered. If that's not illegal it's certainly unethical.

[Lukertin]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

No. That doesn't bear close inspection. To continue your own example: Person A is no longer entitled to play the game even though it's been payed for. If EA is accepting further payments for a service or product that has already been paid for then by extension Person A should be able to retain the right to use the product or service in question.

Even by your standard EA is being payed twice, once for the new product and again for a service or product that has already been rendered. If that's not illegal it's certainly unethical.

It isn't illegal and it certainly isn't unethical.

[Dragoonlordz]

Ringo12 wrote...

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?

When a person buys a used game the publisher makes no money from that purchase. With the online pass certain features will be locked because basically that what its for. If you buy a game new EA doesn't charge you for the locked content but if you buy it used and someone decided to use the online pass keycode you need to buy a new code directly from EA and that's how they profit from used game sales.

Spot on correct as always. Which is why I brought up this topic and made the thread mostly in relation to the effect will have on game rentals. If wish to rent you would have to pay the rental for (x) amount of days. If wish to experience the entire game in that rental period all aspects most importantly for a game like ME3/MW3/BF3 etc you would have to pay EA an extra fee on top to access that online content or play in first place after paying to rent from say blockbuster or whatever place. Pushes that rental price up from example £7 to £17. Because unlike what some other person said, there is no trial period. For each person who rents it really is first come; first to use code to register content to their account upon renting a title and the rest have to fork out that extra fee to for example again play BF3 online during the rental peiod. Now maybe that person lives in magical place with singing flowers and lollipop people or very simply just lives in much nicer place but where I am there is no such thing as trial with rentals only codes which upon use is locked out for other people same applies to online/content passes such as EA pass.

Now I'm not hugely offended by their action because I generally buy new anyways and tend to buy new months and months after release for most games which is when new price is same as used price or close to it which is about £15/£20 used/new.. But I am curious as to the result on other businesses such as the rental market. I'm assuming ] £15>shoots upto £25 so.. £25/£20 used/new.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 07 novembre 2011 - 05:43 .

[Il Divo]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

No. That doesn't bear close inspection. To continue your own example: Person A is no longer entitled to play the game even though it's been payed for. If EA is accepting further payments for a service or product that has already been paid for then by extension Person A should be able to retain the right to use the product or service in question.

You're missing a critical distinction: Person A no longer wants to play the game, hence the trade-in. Their demand was already satisfied and their trade-in results in the product being given to another person, who otherwise might have paid EA by purchasing new. That is why two demands are being satisfied at the cost of one.
EA is using a work around. Buy used? Fine, you still get the majority of the experience, but if you want multiplayer or any other content, you're going to have to pay them for it, since they got nothing off that particular sale.

Even by your standard EA is being payed twice, once for the new product and again for a service or product that has already been rendered. If that's not illegal it's certainly unethical.

Which is the customer's responsibility. He could have bought new and everyone gets the full experience. This is EA's work around in response to the used market. It's no worse than EA being paid once for two people playing the game. They're not obligated to provide the full experience to used purchasers.

It's also not unethical to refuse to allow those who don't pay you to play through your content. For all intents and purposes, you're not a customer. If any individual feels that EA's practices are unjustified, they are free to avoid buying their products, in the future.

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 novembre 2011 - 04:28 .

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

No. Still not buying it.

I'm not missing the distinction. I'm saying that legally/morally the ditinction is irrelevant. Whether person A wants the product or not, he still owns it.

If I buy a book and resell it the publisher gets nothing, but it's a legal sale. The same is true of music, movies, art... every other form of media on the planet. The artist, developer, and publisher is entitled to profit from the sale of a product ONCE. After that it has become the property of the purchaser and the purchaser, and the purchaser ALONE, is entitled to any and all future profits of that product.

[Il Divo]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

No. Still not buying it.

I'm not missing the distinction. I'm saying that legally/morally the ditinction is irrelevant. Whether person A wants the product or not, he still owns it. 

You don't have to buy it. It doesn't make you any less wrong. The entire point of economics is to satisfy a demand. Person A wanting the product is the entire basis of my argument; his demand is satisfied, which was the product's intended purpose. Publishers make products to meet demands, in exchange for profits. Person B now has that demand satisfied as well, but he did so without the publisher/developer receiving anything for it.

If I buy a book and resell it the publisher gets nothing, but it's a legal sale. The same is true of music, movies, art... every other form of media on the planet. The artist, developer, and publisher is entitled to profit from the sale of a product ONCE. After that it has become the property of the purchaser and the purchaser, and the purchaser ALONE, is entitled to any and all future profits of that product.

All of this from the perspective of entitlement, which nullifies your entire argument. When you purchased that book, there was the stipulation that you obtained the physical copy and could do what you want with it. If the publisher agrees to that stipulation, then good for them.

EA simply isn't following that logic any longer, which is their right. You don't have to purchase their products if you don't think it's worth it, but there is no law which states that EA must allow used gamers to retain the full experience, merely because you have received it from books, movies, whatever. The only difference is now there is a proviso that only the original purchaser obtains the full experience. It's no different than how it's impossible to sell online games via Steam back to the retailer. As argued, you have no moral or legal backing on this.

Modifié par Il Divo, 08 novembre 2011 - 03:05 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Il Divo wrote...

All of this from the perspective of entitlement, which nullifies your entire argument. When you purchased that book, there was the stipulation that you obtained the physical copy and could do what you want with it. If the publisher agrees to that stipulation, then good for them.

EA simply isn't following that logic any longer, which is their right. You don't have to purchase their products if you don't think it's worth it, but there is no law which states that EA must allow used gamers to retain the full experience, merely because you have received it from books, movies, whatever. The only difference is now there is a proviso that only the original purchaser obtains the full experience. It's no different than how it's impossible to sell online games via Steam back to the retailer. As argued, you have no moral or legal backing on this.

And what is wrong with the perspective of entitlement?  We are entitled to our consumer rights, otherwise EA and other companies will just **** all over us.  Besides, you are arguing from the perspective of entitlement too, that EA are entitled to profits of units that have already been sold.  Sure, companies are meant to make a profit, but when they start uitilising tactics that threaten the rights of consumers then they are entitled to fight back.  Slavery used to be legal in many countries, that got changed.  If there isn't a law already in place to handle this kind of thing then maybe there should be.

Companies must love people who stand up for their right to screw their customers without even having to pay them...

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

Il Divo wrote...
Snip

OK, let's start out with the basis of your "argument" which is just plain wrong. The purpose of economics is NOT to satisfy a demand. The purpose of economics is to provide a framework by which limited resources can be distributed.

Not wanting something that you own does not negate your ownership of it, nor does it absolve you of responsibility for it.

What is it with the abuse of the word "entitlement" these days? Am I being some kind of brat because I claim ownership over things that I buy? How does this negate my argument? Because you say so?

Look, I gotta tell ya. I'm not to worried about this. By locking content on resale all EA is accomplishing is reducing the market value of it's product. In the end a lot of people will decide not to buy the game simply on the grounds that they can't resell it. Others will buy it not realizing this limitation and will ultimately refuse to buy future titles because they feel abused or misled by the publisher. This is a short sighted, stupid policy which is going to turn around and bite EA on the butt.

But beyond that what EA is doing is just plain wrong, IMHO, and you haven't presented any arguments to me that don't read like tissue paper. "Because I say so" isn't an argument no matter how many words you use to say it.

Modifié par UrkOfGreyhawk, 08 novembre 2011 - 08:15 .

[Il Divo]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

And what is wrong with the perspective of entitlement? We are entitled to our consumer rights, otherwise EA and other companies will just **** all over us.

Because it has no basis in logic, as you're attempting to use it. The book and movie examples are a perfect demonstration of this. Every publisher is not required to give you the same deal which you received from previous publishers. Put another way: because game-makers in the past chose to let used gamers experience the entire game does not mean that every game-maker is required to let used-gamers experience the entire game.

Digital downloads are a perfect demonstration of this.
 

Besides, you are arguing from the perspective of entitlement too, that EA are entitled to profits of units that have already been sold. Sure, companies are meant to make a profit, but when they start uitilising tactics that threaten the rights of consumers then they are entitled to fight back. Slavery used to be legal in many countries, that got changed. If there isn't a law already in place to handle this kind of thing then maybe there should be.

Companies must love people who stand up for their right to screw their customers without even having to pay them...

Faulty comparison. EA is entitled to do whatever they please with their own product, that includes establishing the terms of a sale. That includes digital distribution, as well as including portions of the game as single-player dlc. Certainly, there are government regulations regarding what is appropriate in these situations,  but your logic essentially says that EA is not allowed to offer you different terms of sale than what you're used to.

And stop with melodramatic appeals to slavery. It’s not relevant to this discussion. There shouldn't be a law stipulating EA can't employ online passes any more than there should be a law stating that digital downloads are illegal. It is their product; they are allowed to determine how they want to sell it.

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 novembre 2011 - 09:04 .

[Il Divo]

UrkofGreyHawke wrote...

OK, let's start out with the basis of your "argument" which is just plain wrong. The purpose of economics is NOT to satisfy a demand. The purpose of economics is to provide a framework by which limited resources can be distributed.

Irrelevant. Should I have instead said “The goal of every publisher is to satisfy a demand?” Would that make it better for you? You’re circumventing the main argument; EA does not create a product which they do not intend to sell. Their goal is to sell that product, which is based in demand.  EA makes games based on the idea that there exists some market for their game. That’s the basics of how selling anything works. Focus on the substance of my argument, not on the semantics.

For what it's worth to you, I'll admit the use of the word economics was ill-chosen.
 

Not wanting something that you own does not negate your ownership of it, nor does it absolve you of responsibility for it.

You obviously don’t understand the argument. The point of the used game argument is that two people satisfy a desire, while the publisher only gets paid once. You attempted to argue that because Person A can no longer play the game, it’s ethical. That argument does not hold, because (on the basis of demand) Person A no longer wants to play the game, but they still got full use out of it. However Person B, who does want to play the game, can now do so without money going to the publisher.

The publisher is not "entitled" to Person B's money, which is your mistaken assumption, but it is their right (in selling their product) to set provisions which may restrict Person B's ability to obtain the full experience.

What is it with the abuse of the word "entitlement" these days? Am I being some kind of brat because I claim ownership over things that I buy? How does this negate my argument? Because you say so?

I don’t consider you a brat for claiming ownership over things you buy. I would consider you a brat for claiming it’s unethical for a company to change the terms of any deal they offer you, merely because other companies offered you better terms.

 In this case, you’re claiming that because other publishers let you experience the full game, it is only ethical for all publishers to provide you the full game and to allow used-gamers that same experience.

Ex: If you purchase Mass Effect 3, you get to claim ownership to do whatever you want with the contents, but you’ve implicitly agreed to the stipulation that you alone can access multiplayer, Cerberus network, whatever, which manifests itself in the online pass. Once the sale has been made however, you do have rights to do whatever you want with the disc, manual, box, whatever. If you don't like it, there's the option to not buy their products. But they have not "taken" anything from you; they merely stipulated different terms of that sale.

The implications of your logic regarding ethics is that any terms of a sale are absolutely final and cannot be changed, which is not how things work.

Look, I gotta tell ya. I'm not to worried about this. By locking content on resale all EA is accomplishing is reducing the market value of it's product. In the end a lot of people will decide not to buy the game simply on the grounds that they can't resell it. Others will buy it not realizing this limitation and will ultimately refuse to buy future titles because they feel abused or misled by the publisher. This is a short sighted, stupid policy which is going to turn around and bite EA on the butt.  

I have no doubt you think so, except missing one critical detail: as long as Gamestop allows  customers to trade in their games, EA can do this perfectly fine.

But beyond that what EA is doing is just plain wrong, IMHO, and you haven't presented any arguments to me that don't read like tissue paper. "Because I say so" isn't an argument no matter how many words you use to say it.

 
I provided a coherent argument. My logic is based on the understanding that the seller has the right to stipulate the terms of any sale, under certain restrictions. You have not provided a counter-argument, beyond appealing to your own personal entitlement, which doesn’t hold any weight.

Modifié par Il Divo, 08 novembre 2011 - 10:45 .

[FlintlockJazz]

If EA don't want their product being sold on why don't they make it illegal to do so? Oh that's right because they can't, we have made a purchase end of story. Nintendo DID try to stop it through the courts, and failed miserably.

And no, EA are not entitled to make up their own terms of sale, just as Toyota are not allowed to state that their cars are not allowed to be sold on, we have bought the product end of story. It's not entitlement that you so like to use but our right. Buying and selling have been based on the simple exchange of goods and services for pay for centuries, but apparently because EA suddenly don't like that arrangement they suddenly want to change it, taking power away from the consumer. They are attempting underhanded tactics to get around laws, claiming anything else is overlooking this basic fact. Their cries of "But we're losing out" hold no water when books and film both have suffered the problem for decades and just dealt with it.

If a company wants to cut into second hand sales maybe they should start releasing games that take people more than a day to finish before they sell it on, amazing that it's become more of an issue the shorter games have gotten...

EDIT:  Oh, and it's not a faulty comparison, you ARE arguing from a sense of entitlement for EA, that they are entitled to do whatever they want with their product, and others are arguing that they are entitled to do what they please with what they have bought.

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 09 novembre 2011 - 10:52 .

[Il Divo]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

If EA don't want their product being sold on why don't they make it illegal to do so? Oh that's right because they can't, we have made a purchase end of story. Nintendo DID try to stop it through the courts, and failed miserably.

Nice fail right there. Selling portions of a game using an online pass is not equivalent to your scenario. You never received a hard copy of that product. You don't get a hard copy of the entire game, much like with digital downloads. Your purchase simply came with certain restrictions, which you don't like. Your post reeks of entitlement.

And no, EA are not entitled to make up their own terms of sale, just as Toyota are not allowed to state that their cars are not allowed to be sold on, we have bought the product end of story. It's not entitlement that you so like to use but our right. Buying and selling have been based on the simple exchange of goods and services for pay for centuries, but apparently because EA suddenly don't like that arrangement they suddenly want to change it, taking power away from the consumer. They are attempting underhanded tactics to get around laws, claiming anything else is overlooking this basic fact. Their cries of "But we're losing out" hold no water when books and film both have suffered the problem for decades and just dealt with it.

Translation: You are whining because you don't like the terms of sale, which are not subject to your decisions. If you don't like it, stop buying EA products. That's the "end of story". It really doesn't matter what books and films have done.

EDIT: Oh, and it's not a faulty comparison, you ARE arguing from a sense of entitlement for EA, that they are entitled to do whatever they want with their product, and others are arguing that they are entitled to do what they please with what they have bought.

Yes, it is. EA owns the game. They sell it however they want. You purchased the game, with certain restrictions in place. You can't claim entitlement, because you are strictly entitled to that online pass, not the ability to give the multiplayer experience to anyone you choose. You can't claim entitlement to what you never received in the first place.

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 novembre 2011 - 10:57 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Il Divo wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

If EA don't want their product being sold on why don't they make it illegal to do so? Oh that's right because they can't, we have made a purchase end of story. Nintendo DID try to stop it through the courts, and failed miserably.

Nice fail right there. Selling portions of a game using an online pass is not equivalent to your scenario. You never received a hard copy of that product. You don't get a hard copy of the game, much like with digital downloads.

And no, EA are not entitled to make up their own terms of sale, just as Toyota are not allowed to state that their cars are not allowed to be sold on, we have bought the product end of story. It's not entitlement that you so like to use but our right. Buying and selling have been based on the simple exchange of goods and services for pay for centuries, but apparently because EA suddenly don't like that arrangement they suddenly want to change it, taking power away from the consumer. They are attempting underhanded tactics to get around laws, claiming anything else is overlooking this basic fact. Their cries of "But we're losing out" hold no water when books and film both have suffered the problem for decades and just dealt with it.

Translation: You are whining because you don't like the terms of sale, which are not subject to your decisions. If you don't like it, stop buying EA products. That's the "end of story".

The bolded: it is EA's product, ergo they can establish the terms.

Translation: You have no argument and so have to resort to claims of whining.  I stand up for what I believe in, what people like you call whining because you want to delude yourself into thinking that it's okay, similar to buyer's remorse.  

Whatever, I have my principles and no I won't be buying any more EA products any more, that is the end of story indeed.  I'm sure you'll reply with "I'm sure EA won't miss it!" "Don't let the door hit you on the way out!" or some other inane little childish response, but I don't care, I'm doing it because I don't enjoy being taken for a ride or being screwed over.  I'm sure EA will do fine with people like you suckling on their teats.  I'm done, goodbye.

[lobi]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

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.

Jack! seriously? think it through.
They already have their profit from the first sale. They cannot and do not charge on the basis of how many people play the game. It is impossible to calculate, even on the original purchase. Seperate copy for everyone in the family?

Also a nominal licence fee should not be ten dollars. How much is the licence fee on a new game? Also should be a different eula for used titles and both should be on disk or in readme during install. The administartive costs would be minimal and should be waived. This applys to all content.
EA are cutting costs and trying to limit the life cycles of product to push new sales. Case in point ME dlc, even original users who paid for bring down the sky are having trouble when they want to reinstall.
It's equivilent to selling/giving a house to someone and the original Estate Agent with-holding the key to the custom bathroom you paid to have fitted.

Modifié par lobi, 09 novembre 2011 - 11:43 .

[Il Divo]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Translation: You have no argument and so have to resort to claims of whining.  I stand up for what I believe in, what people like you call whining because you want to delude yourself into thinking that it's okay, similar to buyer's remorse.  

Whatever, I have my principles and no I won't be buying any more EA products any more, that is the end of story indeed.  I'm sure you'll reply with "I'm sure EA won't miss it!" "Don't let the door hit you on the way out!" or some other inane little childish response, but I don't care, I'm doing it because I don't enjoy being taken for a ride or being screwed over.  I'm sure EA will do fine with people like you suckling on their teats.  I'm done, goodbye.

No, I really don't care if EA misses your or not. I simply find adults behaving like children rather sad. I say you are whining precisely because: you are whining. If this were not the case, you would not be claiming entitlement, which is not an argument. You cannot be entitled to what you do not already own. You were not taken for a ride and you were not screwed over.
 
I'm sorry if you don't want to realize this because it's easier to complain that EA owes you something, when they don't. They offered you different terms of sale than what you are used to, which violates your expectations, not your entitlement. The two terms are not synonymous. Until they violate the latter, they have not broken any ethical boundaries, as far as I'm concerned.

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 novembre 2011 - 12:14 .

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

LMAO. Welcome to the boycott, Flintlock.

Divo I'm not going to engage you point for point, because quite frankly for all your protestations about logic you're completely irrational on this subject and it's just painful seeing a grown man sticking his fingers in his ears and going "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA" at the top of his lungs. But consider this. Over the course of this fairly short thread, here on an EA website, 1 customer was already boycotting the brand, and another has joined the boycott during the discussion.

That is what I meant about this policy being "stupid and short-sighted".

And if you think Gamestop is going to take this lying down you're delusional. Their whole business model is based around used game sales. This new strategy is a direct attack on Gamestop. If you think for one minute that Gamestop is going to offer full value for EA games with locked content you must be insane. They just aren't that stupid. Indeed many of EAs customers aren't even going to find out about this new policy until they show up at Gamestop as uninformed consumers looking to trade in their games and the clerk explains to them that with the multiplayer locked the games are pretty much worthless.

Only then will the gnashing of teeth and tearing of sack cloth truly begin.

The backlash will be slow, but it's as certain as the coming of winter.

Modifié par UrkOfGreyhawk, 10 novembre 2011 - 05:08 .

[Il Divo]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

LMAO. Welcome to the boycott, Flintlock.

Divo I'm not going to engage you point for point, because quite frankly for all your protestations about logic you're completely irrational on this subject and it's just painful seeing a grown man sticking his fingers in his ears and going "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA" at the top of his lungs.

I'm not the one claiming that I'm entitled to things which I have not purchased. That's what you seem to have trouble accepting. You want a really fun example of what you're suggesting? Try this.

Imagine that you live in an apartment, and outside your apartment there's a fruit stand. You've lived in this apartment for five years or so, and for those five years that fruit vendor has offered you the same deal: a pound of apples for a $1.00. Now imagine that you go outside to that fruit stand and, after five years of having paid the same price for fruit, you discover that these apples are now $2.00. Tell me, are you still entitled to $1.00 apples? 

That is why your argument continues to fall flat on its face. Your argument is based in nothing more than expectation, and that is not enough to claim entitlement. You don't own apples which you have not already purchased. Ergo, you are not entitled to $1.00 apples any more than you are entitled to receive the complete Mass Effect 3 game experience on your game disc, especially since in this case you fully are aware of the deal EA is offering you and it's their right to do so, because it is their product, just like it is their right to sell games online. And just like it is your right to refuse to buy their products. Because you are entitled to do what you want with your own money, nothing more.

This is why I continually think you both need to grow up. Small children confuse "I want X" with "I am entitled to X".  Entitlement implies expectation. The reverse is not true.

In short: Expectation is a necessary condition of entitlement, but you are attempting to turn it into a sufficient condition.

But consider this. Over the course of this fairly short thread, here on an EA website, 1 customer was already boycotting the brand, and another has joined the boycott during the discussion.
 
That is what I meant about this policy being "stupid and short-sighted".

So two people have decided not to buy EA products? And that's a clear indicator that this business model is a failure? Versus how many who will potentially buy an online pass to access multiplayer, or the cerberus network, or whatever else they decide? Are you aware that, statistically speaking, anecdotal evidence is invalid? Come back with statistics and we can talk about the validity of this business model. How exactly do you think that even remotely demonstrates "stupid and short-sighted"?

And if you think Gamestop is going to take this lying down you're delusional. Their whole business model is based around used game sales. This new strategy is a direct attack on Gamestop. If you think for one minute that Gamestop is going to offer full value for EA games with locked content you must be insane. They just aren't that stupid. Indeed many of EAs customers aren't even going to find out about this new policy until they show up at Gamestop as uninformed consumers looking to trade in their games and the clerk explains to them that with the multiplayer locked the games are pretty much worthless.

You've made a critical assumption by only focusing on multiplayer, and even there you have no means of knowing whether the number of trade ins will be significantly impacted by this. It all comes down to the question: does Gamestop still generate a profit? As long as that is the case, they will continue to offer used game deals of EA products.

Dragon Age: Origin's Shale and ME2's Cerberus Network were great examples. How much do you honestly see the used game market crashing as a result of that style of content? Again, when you have statistics, we can discuss those. And as I said above, even if it hurts Gamestop, they will always offer used game sales if it continues to generate a profit.

And I notice you still haven't proven your argument regarding how this is wrong, in terms of ethics or legality.

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 novembre 2011 - 01:42 .

[Il Divo]

Edit: Double Post.

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 novembre 2011 - 01:41 .

[Stanley Woo]

Let's try to keep things civil in this thread, please. Thank you.

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

Comparing apples and video games?

Divo your arguments are getting more desperate and bizarre with each post.

If you want the actual math of it about 25 people have responded to this post (not including mods) and at least two of them are boycotting EA. That means over the course of this thread the percentage of customers boycotting EA has risen from 4% to 8%. That's a pretty positive trend from where I sit, but if I had EA stock I'd be blinking nervously if I saw numbers like that. 8% of sales is significant.

Of course the statistical sample here is small, and the community doesn't actually reflect the larger community of gamers. After all, this is an EA site so results will naturally be skewed. In EAs favor, but skewed nevertheless.

In order to activate multiplayer it will cost users $10. That's more than even a popular AAA used game will usually fetch from Gamestop. With the activation fee being more than the trade in value of the game, yes. I think that's going to pretty much trash the resale market. You'll be lucky to get two or three bucks for a used copy of Battlefield 3. Without used game sales the Gamestop business model is no longer viable. If companies like EA cripple the resale market, Gamestop will close it's doors and EA wouldn't shed a tear.

I don't know where you're from. Maybe this is a cultural difference. I'm from the United States. Here we have long standing conventions about property ownership and we take them very seriously.

Once I buy an apple it's mine, although I think that's a silly analogy. Despite your protestations to the contrary art, literature, and music are much better comparasons from a legal/ethical standpoint. But let's run with it... once I buy an apple the apple vendor doesn't get to tell me what i can and can't do with it. If I want to sel it to someone else I can do that. The apple vendor isn't entitled to a cut of the sale.

EA is not trying to bump up the price of their product. They are trying to defy standing, accepted legal and social standards that have governed the exchange of published intellectual property for hundreds of years. They are trying to do nothing shy redefining what property ownership IS.

Here in the States we take encroachment on our property rights, be it by our corporate overlords or their lackeys in Washington, pretty seriously.

But again... I'm not to worried about it. In the end it will only cut into their profits, encourage piracy, and inflame anti-EA sentiment. In my book, that's a good thing.

Oh... Cool sig, Stanley.

Modifié par UrkOfGreyhawk, 11 novembre 2011 - 03:57 .

[Il Divo]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

Comparing apples and video games?

Divo your arguments are getting more desperate and bizarre with each post.

It's called argument from analogy. I understand if it's beyond your comprehension. It lets us relate concepts which, at first glance, might seem unrelated, much like your efforts at comparing games to books and movies. See? You learned something today.

I'm sorry that you do not understand the concept of analogies.

If you want the actual math of it about 25 people have responded to this post (not including mods) and at least two of them are boycotting EA. That means over the course of this thread the percentage of customers boycotting EA has risen from 4% to 8%. That's a pretty positive trend from where I sit, but if I had EA stock I'd be blinking nervously if I saw numbers like that. 8% of sales is significant.

This is beyond hilarious.

You yourself admit to how small the sample size is. Please stop trying until you actually have statistically significant results. Anything else you pull out is worthless. Clearly from a group of two people, 8% of all customers are going to boycott EA products.

I don't know where you're from. Maybe this is a cultural difference. I'm from the United States. Here we have long standing conventions about property ownership and we take them very seriously.

I take property ownership seriously. The difference is that I actually understand what property ownership entails. Hint: you are not entitled to what you think you are entitled to.

Once I buy an apple it's mine, although I think that's a silly analogy. Despite your protestations to the contrary art, literature, and music are much better comparasons from a legal/ethical standpoint. But let's run with it... once I buy an apple the apple vendor doesn't get to tell me what i can and can't do with it. If I want to sel it to someone else I can do that. The apple vendor isn't entitled to a cut of the sale.

That's the point. You didn't buy the product as you are imagining it. Multiplayer was not contained in the disc, ergo you are not entitled to it. That is how property works. EA did not take anything from you, no matter how many times you scream otherwise. The online pass is your property, to use on any one account as you see fit. That's the extent of your property rights. You don't set terms of sale, the seller does. Understand this before you keep screaming more lines about "property rights".

The apple vendor, much like EA, is entitled to establish whatever terms he'd like in selling a product, with certain legal limitations. You can't tell the apple vendor to sell  you $1.00 apples any more than you force EA to put MP on their game disc. It's their property, not yours. Your role begins and ends with your willingness to buy the product.

EA is not trying to bump up the price of their product. They are trying to defy standing, accepted legal and social standards that have governed the exchange of published intellectual property for hundreds of years. They are trying to do nothing shy redefining what property ownership IS.

Here in the States we take encroachment on our property rights, be it by our corporate overlords or their lackeys in Washington, pretty seriously.

From the States as well, so you might want to drop that approach on me.

It doesn't make your argument any more valid. You see, people are entitled to certain rights in selling their products, which you seem to take issue with. It doesn't change the fact that it's not your property, beyond what the sale establishes.

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 novembre 2011 - 04:17 .

[Stanley Woo]

Aaaaaaaaand we're done here.

End of line.