Why EA’s $10 online used game pass is a GREAT idea

Maxconsole writes: At first hearing, we thought EA’s idea of a $10 charge to go online with a used game was an act of pure and sheer greed. It was almost as if they were trying to squeeze out every penny possible from the gaming sector. But on second thoughts, we have to say that it is a great idea, the game industry cannot be compared to the car industry or any other, it is a rare and unique industry that thrives on creativity with little margins now more than ever. So keep reading for their thoughts on why the magical online pass is a great idea.

[trounbyfire]

it sucks that EA is doing this and it shouldn't be looked at as them trying to get money to make up for the times we are in. It's GREED pure and simple and we should not support it. I will not so who is with me. seriously i will not

[deadreckoning666]

I personally believe it's a good idea. EA is a great publisher and I think the gaming community should be supporting them by buying their games brand new. Games like Bad Company 2, Mass Effect 2, and the upcoming Medal of Honor and EA MMA DESERVE to be bought first hand.

Btw, there are GREAT deals out there. I bought BC2 on Amazon and they gave me 25 bucks towards my next game purchase(which I will be spending on EA MMA).

@trounbyfire- I don't think their greedy...dude, look at BC2. The people who bought it new are rewarded with free maps for the next year or so.

[IdleLeeSiuLung]

GREED is part of any company... that is not the issue. The issue is a business model that rips off consumers by:

a) prevent people to lend away games to play online. Basically with this pass, for the most part only one person can play it online if you have multiple accounts.

b) decrease a consumers resale value of game

This isn't going to hurt GameStop, they will just factor in the cost of the Game Pass when computing trade in value!

Maintenance of servers is part of the initial new purchase of the game, not how frequently I use it. People b!tch about Activision, but in my eyes EA is far worse.

[Topshelfcheese]

It will hurt gamestop, cause if consumers thought about it, they wouldnt be paying 54.99 for a used copy of a game anymore. It would be cheaper to buy it new and have all the access already.

This is a brilliant move to get Gamestop to lower there used game prices, yes people will get less resale value from Gamestop, but you can always sell the stuff yourself on amazon, ebay, etc and get far more money back.

[Silver360]

But they get nothing from the sale of a used game, so where is the money coming from to maintain online stats and the servers?

[IdleLeeSiuLung]

EA should account for the cost of their servers from the initial sale!

It shouldn't matter who uses it as long as I have a legitimate copy!!! Why would EA all of a sudden be entitled to more money from a second sale?

[Delive]

Good point. I am on the fence though. I feel the developers, the real ones who put the work and sweat into making the games we love, are getting shorted in the used game market. I should be feeding their kids when buying their games, not gamestop. The pass will help some of that revenue get back to the developers. From where I live, I have a used game store that sells recently released used games for $39.95, $15 cheaper that GS. So, even if I bought TW11 used from there, I could get the pass and still come off better than getting it at GS.

[Nineball2112]

I don't know I didn't ask this some other time... but...

How will this effect game rentals? If I rent a game through GameFly, will it not be usable in terms of the online portion of it?

If so, that sucks big time... lol

[Baka-akaB]

@IdleLeeSiuLung

I entirely support the decision .
I and others dont constantly buy new games (dont care for used stuff) , so crappy store entirely benefits from an alternative market (that's actually ripping off customers a lot) , while giving devs and publishers , yet another excuse to increase costs of games .

Your 10$ at least go toward the devs , and if you dont care about online , you dont even need to roll with it , can keep buing used or rent the game.

That new system+incentive free dlc such as EA's cerberus network , are perfect imo .
It's either that or games being tied to accounts even more .

[tda-danny]

In theory its a good idea and shouldn't hurt the customer.

However, the reality is that EA sports games to not share the same dev time as big titles (yearly iterations), and thus only refinements are made to the products year after year. This means that while the EA sports titles sell well currently at full price, the cost of production is lower than for most games = increased profits already, without the need to charge $10 to play on line to those who buy it used.

Also, EA pulls down its online servers after 2-3 years on its sports titles, so its not like they are supporting their sports titles from 5 years ago.

What is this extra $10 going towards exactly?

I usually buy my games new, so its not a huge deal to me, but for some, it appears to be greedy greedy old EA again...

[Cevapi88]

the $10 does...but the other $20-$50 goes to the store...its just another step back in what ownership of videogames means

[Enate]

Has this considered people who rent? Most people rent to decide if they want to buy. If the online component is an important part of the game you rented and you can't play without paying. You could ultimately decide well it isn't worth paying for send it back and the online could have been the determining factor of if you decided to buy it or not. An ultimately they have inadvertently killed a potential sale.

Edit: just saw Nineball2112 post but that raises the question twice now an I can clearly see I'm not the only one with the question.

[qface64]

i buy all my games new x)
only games i buy used are the rather older ones and chances are if it supports online i doubt the servers would still even be up

[isa_scout]

i would have agreed but for the fact that you cant even play franchise modes without the $10 pass which is bull. Online i can understand because EA has to maintain servers and pay for the online expenses,but people don't generally take kindly to someone forcing them into spending extra money on something so this could seriously backfire on EA

[playstation_clan]

is EA and activision related?

[Lucreto]

I wouldn't be surprised if Gamestop give us less in trade in as it is not the complete package as you used the code and Gamestop would still charge full price.

[MonopolyRSV]

5 dollars would've been more reasonable.

[BeaArthur]

Great idea depending on who you are. Great idea for EA not so much for everyone else.

[booni3]

that sounds about right.

[gamingisnotacrime]

EA invests the millions of dollars, takes the risk and when somebody buys the game new, no prob no need to pay for any online crap, and when someone buys the game used to save money, ea does not receive a cent from this, so the online component balances out what ea rightfully deserves. I know it may soundlike EA is being greedy, but the used game market has been making a hole in developers pockets for a long time
Examples: i bought ME2, and BC2 both new. I dont have to pay for cerberus and VIP respectivelly, so for me this whole pay for access is not an issue because they made their money when i bought the new copy

[despair]

ugh more signs of careless greed harming the industry and people will complain a little and still by their products

[Topshelfcheese]

I don't think most people fully understand the reasoning behind this.

Consumer A buys game new: game company makes about 5-7dollars of that 60.
Consumer A trades into Gamestop a little later: gets 30credit.
Gamestop sells game for 54.99 used
Consumer B buys game for 54.99
Gamestop makes 24.99 in profit

If you can explain to me why Gamestop should make 3-4 times more on the sale of a game than the developer, than you can cry about this all you want.

What this should end up doing is forcing Gamestop to lower the price at which they sell used games at. If they do, than the 10 dollars that you would be paying anyway to gamestop, goes to the developer instead.

[BRG9000]

Very well said. My fear, however, is that this will be passed entirely to the consumer, and will soon look like this:

Consumer A buys game new: game company makes about 5-7 dollars of that 60.
Consumer A trades into Gamestop a little later: gets 20 credit.
Gamestop sells game for 44.99 used
Consumer B buys game for 44.99
Gamestop makes 24.99 in profit
Gamestop also sells the point card Consumer B uses for online pass, and makes another $2 in profit

If Gamestop is able mitigate this by just lowering both used game price and trade-in credit by $10, really only the consumer is hurt (and the developer makes more, which I'm in favor of).

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

[Topshelfcheese]

you make a good point, but you can also look at it in another way too. I would assume a good number of those consumers don't even care about online and therefore they are saving even more money from the cheaper used price. But, I do get what your saying.

[asdf12]

The game sells for 49.99, 29 of that is for the Dev and publisher, The rest is royalties for Sony, MS and Nintendo, depending on platform.

That's why PC games are cheaper than console games.

[BRG9000]

Don't forget the cuts that go to the retailer (about $20 per $60 game sold, if the retail markup is similar to types of retail I am more familiar with), the shippers, the distributors, the advertising agency, etc.

When you pay $59.99 for a new game, you're not handing the money to be divided between just the developer, publisher, and console company. Only a fraction of the price even makes it that far.

[Baka-akaB]

I'm harsh , but if it hurts such customers , all the better .
Isnt the goal to force buying new games in a much more advantageous way ?

So yeah i see gamestop offsetting this with higher cost as a good thing . Not everyone is a sheep and some will re-evaluate if it isnt worth more new rather than used .

besides , from what i've seen , many used games are there because mostly offline . The most obscure games without online modes just get the kiss of death and are simply rented , bought used , or even pirated .

[divideby0]

what does it do for a gamer who buys the game and plays online..NOTHING...we wont see any thing for it..

[mcslick101]

It is a great idea. It's not fair that the likes of GameStop get to make money on their product and not give any revenue to the publishers. Pre-Owned games were hitting the industry hard and this is a great way tackle the the problem. 70% of pirates admit that they wouldn't even have bought the game in the first place, so essentially piracy isn't too damaging, they're not making a loss on something they would've have made in the first place. Look on the bright side, with your money being inveseted into the greatest industry of all time you're surely going to make it greater. It'll increase game budgets, team sizes and maybe even technology. Well, help increase those listed.

[Sarobi]

it's only fair in my opinion, if you read some of the comments above explaining you should understand, i buy games brand new and rarely ever think about getting it used because half the time theres not much of a price drop, also i rather have the game company make money to gamestop to make more, hence i neglect the idea of my buying a pre-owned game

[LOLconsoles]

Consolized version of DRM. before this sh*t consoles were worth only having because they had no drm, now they're not worth anything.

[divideby0]

I dont get the gamestop hate....they are not forcing anyone to purchase from them with their rip off prices...the hate should be deflected to those who purchase from them...if no one bought from them, they wouldnt have used game sales..

[Baka-akaB]

No one makes gamestop open games and sells them as new ... among many other vicious habits .

Besides when they axphyxiate local moms and pops shops , but underselling at prices no one can follow , and leaves your region empty (while raising back prices up once the way is clear) , with only them as a choice for stores , how isnt it gamestop's fault rather than customers ?

[dizzleK]

i just won't buy EA games period. i simply don't care about the justifications because they're all bs. it's all about money in the shareholders pockets, period. activision makes ass loads of $ but their games are rushed, buggy garbage. it's a fallacy that this will be reinvested in game development.

my solution is sell the core sp experience for $30-$40 at retail. if you want the online modes, that'll be a $20 download. why should i be paying a full $60 for something i won't use? this way i can save money, gamestop will make less in profit and the $20 download will go directly to the devs.

[KilZoneGeneralStrife]

A certain amount of installs,3 per console etc,keep the disc in the console to play.wtf EA,you comunists! !I bought BC2 and ME2 brand new,and had to pay for my bro to get the VIP and Cerberus access,isnt that enough?making us pay per profile?this is 10bucks per profile on a console they want.

[LinuxGuru]

I don't care what you say, we're all welcoming in console-based DRM whether you like it or not.

I hope it stops. It's a spreading disease of companies that only care about making more and more and more money.

Because of this, my brother and I IN THE SAME HOUSE ON THE SAME PLAYSTATION will have to have 2 different copies of the SAME GAME to be able to play online on our own PSN accounts. (Or 1 used game + 20 dollars for online access pass x 2)

This new "idea" is total bullsh!t, and I hope it hurts EA badly.

[gamingisnotacrime]

that just sucks

[VenGencE999]

I can not believe more people can't see this! They are so worried about hating on GS that they are missing the bigger picture. GS will NOT be hurt by this AT ALL. This new practice will ONLY HURT THE CONSUMER! Why can't more folks see this?

If they are so butt hurt for more money, then they can take the fight to GS and make THEM pay out for the used sales.
Why aren't they doing that? Because they know they have NO right to get paid twice for the SAME DAMN DISC.

And for you dodo's in support of this idea, do you really think this extra money is going ANYWHERE ELSE BUT IN THE SHAREHOLDERS POCKET? Do you really think they are going to funnel this money back to the dev teams? Be for real and wake up!

[KilZoneGeneralStrife]

Dude its the same with me.my bro and I play bc2 and ME2.top that with Fifa10 we play,we would have to buy 2 codes to play.I was so p1ssed when I heard the vip bc2 code can be used just once and on one profile.why dont they just make their damn games run P2P instead of their crap servers that give problems every other day.Im angry,EA.We're getting taken for a ride here and the law isnt protecting us

[vegnadragon]

What the hell is wrong with people? That isn't a great idea, now you are going to tell me that i should pay to use a used car because they car company is losing money on old ones, but unlike the auto industry EA has plenty of money. I don't care about gamestop. There are plenty of other ways to get cheaper products like e-bay ,amazon or craglist..

[sajj316]

I like the idea of a 30-40 dollar single player experience and 10-20 dollar multiplayer experience as mentioned above. Multiplayer is download only.

[VenGencE999]

Yeah me too, but that won't happen, the way to bleed the customer is through MP DLC. It takes less time and money to just copy and paste a few skins and import maps already on the disc.
Seriously, how many games have come out in the last two years that expanded on the SP experience? Anyone know? I'm sure there's a know-it-all that's waiting to list them all...

[Knightofelemia]

This will only boost sales of pirated copies of a game. I like used games because if I am unsure about the title I am wasting $60 on a game that could be potential crap and if the online sucks I just wasted more money on crap.

[BrutallyBlunt]

I think this is a great move to keep the industry flowing. I would like to see EA put this money into the online service though. Show us why their games are better online. Also the idea that this is just extra money when the game was already purchased is a little misleading. They still need to track your online ID's and all that. There are stats, Achievements/Trophies that are also linked to you. So the more people connecting the more data that needs to be collected. Why should consumers who buy used make EA spend more time and resources when they are not getting anything in return?

Is it fair to hand over your all day ride pass at Disneyland to someone else when you leave?

[atticusflinch]

Wow, that is one of the silliest analogies I've ever seen (nothing personal mate). Can you really compare buying an actual PRODUCT with paying to access a theme park or a movie theater for that matter? Paying for an experience and paying for a manufactured good are vastly different, save for the fact that both cost money. I own the product, I do not own the experience.
Using the logic of EA advocates, if I purchase a television, but later decide to sell it on eBay, I should mail a check to the manufacturer to ensure said industry will "flow?" Or the reverse, if I buy a used PRODUCT I should pay the manufacturer for the right? The technology in the television represents intellectual property not unlike the code used to design a game. Should I cry for Sony or Samsung too?
When corporate entities add new fees, consumers rarely benefit. I would not hold my breath when it comes to the fantasy that all or most of this cash will be reinvested into either creativity or servers.
That being said, the gaming community is close knit and far seeing, albeit usually from the vantage of tunnel vision. It is admirable to consider the solvency of profit driven enterprises so that these entities can continue to provide solid entertainment choices. Noble yes, but a slap in the face to true free market capitalism. The smartest companies adapt and overcome. Perhaps that is what EA is doing. Only time will tell if this strategy proves tenable in the long term struggle to survive.

[Anti-PS3]

Like I said in previous posts, this is a shitty idea. If my PS3 breaks and I have already used the code to register my full priced purchased game, I will have to pay $10 more just to play a game that I bought brand new. Do you all not see this? This is fucking crazy. I hope other developers don't follow this path.

[hazelamy]

they want to keep a vested interest in games after they've been sold, but only if it means they can make money off them.
they want the benefits, so how about they start showing responsibility too?
what about refunds for broken or buggy games? or just plain bad games.
what about refunds when their crappy servers go down the toilet?
they're still their games when we want to sell them on but suddenly they're all ours when something goes wrong with them.
you can't have it both ways ea, if you want the benefits takes the responsibility.

and on more than one occasion i've questioned the legality of this kind of system.
i mean, they are in fact deliberately devaluing the customers purchases, how is that legal
they depreciate in value quick enough as it is without the publisher sabotaging them.
i would say this borders on price fixing.

and when did we lose the rights over our own purchases?
as long as we're not doing anything illegal like pirating them we should be able to do what we like with them.
accept this and next you have full steam style totalitarian drm that restricts the whole game to a single user.
drm is never, i repeat NEVER, in the best interest of the users, it only ever serves the greed of the publisher.

[Pillville]

OK, let's say 10,000 people buy the game, that $100,000 they pay to play online ($10 a person).

If all those people keep the game, there are 10,000 people playing online.

If all those people sell their game to someone else, there are still only 10,000 playing online, but now EA has another $100,000.

How is this justified? There aren't 10,000 MORE people, just a different set of 10,000 people.