EA to charge used game buyers $10 for online play.

www.engadget.com/2010/05/11/ea-sports-to...unlock-basic-online/

I guess i don't see the problem with this... Just think of it this way, i you buy a game through steam, you can never sell it because it binds to your steam account. They sold it to you to play and you got your money worth, why shouldn't EA get to charge you more if you bought it cheap and want to use their servers to play the game.
Maybe i'm not thinking it through correctly, but my initial thought is that i don't see the big deal.

im not sure if im for or against it...

i see both sides of it.. GM doesnt get more $ when i buy a used Camero..

I'm just going to click away from this topic and keep my blood pressure down.

Lersar wrote:

I'm just going to click away from this topic and keep my blood pressure down.

Chicken!

technobear wrote:

im not sure if im for or against it...

i see both sides of it.. GM doesnt get more $ when i buy a used Camero..

No, but the person who sold you the Camero can't drive it anymore. With PC Games, the seller still has the game installed, unless there is a way to change who the CD key is registered to...

Consider video game renting into the equation as well.

EA is already getting paid full price when the game is purchased the first time. Server upkeep is paid for, and if that person hands it off to somebody else, the server has still received its share.

I disagree with this. It's not putting any extra load on the multiplayer servers, it's still only one person playing.

I guess i didn't think of the console gamers and the placed like McVan's Video Game Trader who rakes in the money being the in-between for video game players...
How would think work if you were to rent a game from Netflix, would they get a special pass for you to be able to play the game for the week you rented it, or would you still have to pay that $10 also? Seems like there is some more information we're missing to form a complete picture.
I think it's funny that you have to pay a monthly fee just to be able to play games in general online... But i guess everyone has their likes in the console world.

It was inevitable that something like this was going to happen especially with this generations heavy investment into DLC. Really it makes sense from the business stand point that they should charge the 10 bucks if the person bought it used since they aren't going to see a dime from the used copy being sold.

They are just trying to cut down the second hand market especially when companies like Gamestop are posting larger quartiles every time in the Billions while publishers and dev houses are scrapping by. Have also heard Epic games is also looking into some charge for used titles whether it is for multiplayer or certain features on the game.

Do I agree with this? Not really but everybody is out to make a buck so they are going to try it from somplace

So, in that respect, everytime you buy a used movie, you should only get to watch the first twenty minutes of it before paying $10 to enjoy the rest? Or maybe only reading the first three chapters of a used book? What about listening to the first two tracks on a CD?

The difference is it doesn't cost the company any more money to provide you with service for your used DVD or Book, but with a video game, you log-on to someone's server to play online which costs someone money... I guess that's how i see it. Now if you had a Kindle or streaming video player that needed a server & updates to read that book or watch the movie, i could see them charging if you sell your copy...

NitrosDragon wrote:

EA is already getting paid full price when the game is purchased the first time. Server upkeep is paid for, and if that person hands it off to somebody else, the server has still received its share.

I disagree with this. It's not putting any extra load on the multiplayer servers, it's still only one person playing.

This. It's still one person per copy, regardless of if a person paid MSRP for it or bought it at a pre-owned price.

Lersar wrote:

NitrosDragon wrote:

EA is already getting paid full price when the game is purchased the first time. Server upkeep is paid for, and if that person hands it off to somebody else, the server has still received its share.

I disagree with this. It's not putting any extra load on the multiplayer servers, it's still only one person playing.

This. It's still one person per copy, regardless of if a person paid MSRP for it or bought it at a pre-owned price.

But could you argue that by selling the same it creates an inflated "life" of the game?
For example. Your tired of playing Madden '09 because you now have Madden 2010 and it's awesome! So a game you would typically file in the back of your closet to be forgotten about and never played again is sold to someone who can't afford Madden 2010, but thinks '09 would be fun, so they guy it and play it for another year, causing an extra person playing on the serves than they intended. Then they sell it again to another kid who then plays it another year, adding 2 whole years to the "life" of that particular game.
And the more i think about it i understand your point about the books and DVDs, i guess it just comes down to the fact that they can't track the books and DVD's but the video games they can!
Simple logistics of doing business.

on a side note, does anyone know how video rental places work? If i rent a DVD of Iron Man, does the maker of Iron Man get a few cents of the rental fee? or when blockbuster buys the movie, that's the only time the maker gets money?

I think for movie rentals the businesses have to chip in some sort of royalty to the movie industry, whether it is a single check a year or skimming some nickels off the top.

I do know the music industry gets a chunk of change whenever blank CD's are sold and MP3 players.

back in the VHS days i knwo they payed a serious premium for their videos.. part was a higher quality casette and the other was for rights to rent..

Twodavez wrote:

Lersar wrote:

NitrosDragon wrote:

EA is already getting paid full price when the game is purchased the first time. Server upkeep is paid for, and if that person hands it off to somebody else, the server has still received its share.

I disagree with this. It's not putting any extra load on the multiplayer servers, it's still only one person playing.

This. It's still one person per copy, regardless of if a person paid MSRP for it or bought it at a pre-owned price.

But could you argue that by selling the same it creates an inflated "life" of the game?
For example. Your tired of playing Madden '09 because you now have Madden 2010 and it's awesome! So a game you would typically file in the back of your closet to be forgotten about and never played again is sold to someone who can't afford Madden 2010, but thinks '09 would be fun, so they guy it and play it for another year, causing an extra person playing on the serves than they intended. Then they sell it again to another kid who then plays it another year, adding 2 whole years to the "life" of that particular game.

A person who buys the game used to play it online isn't going to play online unless there's a community on it already. And assuming the community only consists of people who bought the game used and none who bought it MSRP is grasping for straws. Besides, anyone who shelves a game for years can just as easily decide any day to take it out and play again, 'extending' the life of the servers, original owner or not.

I wonder if there is anything in the original Terms of use for the game that allows them to charge after the fact, or that even makes it legal to sell your original copy. You'd think that back in the day they would've thought of people selling the games and not getting more money. I know McVan's (A local chain of game resellers) has been around for at least 10 years.
I can't get to the article at work, but is this going to go into effect for all games purchased from here on out, or is this retroactive to everygame EA still services through their online services?
I also wanna know how they are going to work it when you rent a game from a reperatable rental company like netflix or blockbuster?

Twodavez wrote:

I wonder if there is anything in the original Terms of use for the game that allows them to charge after the fact, or that even makes it legal to sell your original copy. You'd think that back in the day they would've thought of people selling the games and not getting more money. I know McVan's (A local chain of game resellers) has been around for at least 10 years.
I can't get to the article at work, but is this going to go into effect for all games purchased from here on out, or is this retroactive to everygame EA still services through their online services?
I also wanna know how they are going to work it when you rent a game from a reperatable rental company like netflix or blockbuster?

That's a really good point

I also find this overly suspicious that this is only an EA thing, so far.
I don't think very highly of their relationship with their customers.
I used to be a huge EA fan until I realized what was happening to my products. A few of their games I own now are Rock Band, Rock Band 2, and Spore. The latter being "acquired" in protest of DRM and a few other things. I could go on about EA and Spore all day...

Not trying to pick on EA, but as long as we're talking about them, that's my two cents.

Virtually all Xbox Live games are peer-to-peer. There aren't any servers involved.