*NEW* Charges for second hand, MP, DLC, ...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ibonibo
  • 22 comments
  • 1,873 views

Ibonibo

Premium
Messages
5,440
Luxembourg
Luxemburg
Messages
Already paying my Isp 4 Access
So, as Ea Sports announced their online feature of the games will only be accessible for the first buyer.
Second hand buyers need to pay an extra 10 dollars to can use the even most basic online features.

Were does this companies want to go??

They are hitting on their costumers, and don't even realize that they are destroying their own market (sure their will always be people willing to pay extra)

To clarify: Cost for online (servers, maintainance,...) are included in the original price, as are dlc in fact. (the taxidermist for heavy rain was out before the game why should i give out 5 -15 dollars for that, it should have been included since the beginning)
That was the business plan for games 20 years ago and hasn't change since than. I remember a time where consumer and dev's took care of the whole game after it came out (mods, dedicated servers,....)
Take a look at a "open game" like rfactor, gtr, BF,....

Charging fees for a second buyer is pure profit for the company and isn't used in any way to improve any aspect of the game.

Now charging to play online on a used game. Imagine xbox people, paying their isp for the internet, paying Ms to hook up the xbox to the internet and now pay the publisher to play the game.
What's next?? Paying fees to hook up the xbox to a monitor??
Charging fees to use my hands.??


On any used market, the original reseller gets nothing, whether it is Ea, activison, Bmw, ford, Sony, ....
So BMW should limit the range of used cars to 100km. Want to get 500km per tank?? Pay an extra 5000€!!!
(actually i gonna propose that to bmw, so i can make money with that genius idea:tup::ouch:)

I don't gonna support this stratagy, infact i think this enchances the whole pirate of the media scene. you mod the original files, add lan/private servers, play with friends,.... Look at all the poor bastards who bought Assassins creed 2, the settlers,.... people who bought it were annoyed badly because of servers crashes, whereas the hackers could happily play the whole day long.
Now publisher stat that this games are not piratable. Well biatches look up the internet. Plus MS gave us the genius opportunity to play all games before they are actually released (alan wake out since a week)

Sorry this makes me angry. It's a bit long now i even didn't get to say everything...
Now let's discuss this



PS: And people will figure a way out, as it was with the minis for the ps3 (internet share), to share the exclusiv content. if it's account releated you will have an account per game and will sell the account with the game. Problem resolved.


Or as the germans say : Wollmilchsau
Publisher think we are this
9hs41g.jpg

getting ripped all the ways
 
Last edited:
I mentioned this in another thread and people said I was tight for not spending £40.
 
You aren't. In fact the right answer is: it depends....

paying for a dlc infact is alright for me for a complete add-on (we called it that 5 years ago, and was common, like the Fear expensions, RPG addons (diablo, baldur's gate,...)). So i would have no problem with the GTA episodes, but one year after the original, i'm simply not as hyped as i need to be to buy it. But that is due to the exclusive rights that are bought thats bothers me.

But paying 15€ for 5 maps in a game, where the single player is too short, and where the original mp has only 7-9 maps on board, is simply too much. Dlc like that are the last ****. Sry. look at all the crap they trow out : a car for just cause 0.99€ , a car pack for Nfs 10€,...
When you have all togehter for one game to have it complete you spend 100€ on a single game!!!

plus what will happen to all the downloaded stuff after the servers go down??
not only a part of the original game is lost (mp), no all your 40€ on dlc is gone....

Where are the bright days of Halflife1!!!


And the whole second buyer thing is a complete rip-off!! And i think it is very dangerous for the whole industry. They would get a hell of a lot of first buyers if they would lower the prices of games.
Normally games here cost 60€ minimum. I get them for 30-38€. So quit the half. and since than i buy twice as much games.
for a company this would mean that around 70% of the second buyer would buy a first copy because it's the same price tag as the used one used to be.
That's a lot of new costumers and money.
+you offend no body with restrictions for second buyers or online (please your market)
+you have more potential consumers for dlc.

for one moment i tought that the market would cool down and come back to the roots (when they begun again to release demos of games (thanks PS3!!), which was stopped or slowed down during years (+-Y2K)
 
EA Sports is the devil. The only thing I buy from them is Tiger woods on the Wii. I was contemplating getting it with Move, but this news has just turned me off from that idea.
 
Last edited:
yes i think i will be more selective about which games i will buy in the future.
Or it would rather be: I will be more selective about which publisher i will sponsor. (already sponoring the cops, and they are not cheap :D)

It's only the consumers in this case which can make a difference, because i don't know if there are any legal aspects here on which our fellow americans can sue.

And afterwards, they are crying again like little sissies because they don't make any money, 'cause no one will buy their games.
 
EA Sports is the devil. The only thing I buy from them is Tiger woods on the Wii. I was contemplating getting it with Move, but this news has just turned me of from that idea.

Most developers nowadays are the "devil".

I haven't bought very many games for my PS3 as there aren't many that seem worth even buying it used. Thankfully my PS3 doubles as a Blu-Ray player or it would be ultra useless.

I could easily see this being the last gen. of video games that I play, unless they put the focus back on single player which won't happen.
 
Most developers nowadays are the "devil".

I haven't bought very many games for my PS3 as there aren't many that seem worth even buying it used. Thankfully my PS3 doubles as a Blu-Ray player or it would be ultra useless.

I could easily see this being the last gen. of video games that I play, unless they put the focus back on single player which won't happen.
I don't know, I have a few games stacking up that still need to be played. Were they multiplayer focused they would have been played by now because my friends would have wanted to play them by now.

There is a large focus on multiplayer right now, but I feel that is a side effect of the first all-online console generation. And honestly, a multiplayer focus isn't bad if part of it is a co-op version of the single player campaign. That forces them to make sure the campaign is comparable to the rest of multiplayer. Or they can do crap like this here so that half of us won't bother with it at all.

Some developers get it right and others seem to throw as much crap out there as possible to see what will stick. EA Sports is just one of the best at seeing how much crap they can throw at us.
 
I got lucky, bought a used copy of Rockband 2 and the code for 20 free songs was inactive. i'd assume it will be a dice roll like this in the future.
 
I don't know, I have a few games stacking up that still need to be played. Were they multiplayer focused they would have been played by now because my friends would have wanted to play them by now.

I know there are some, they are just few and far between. Granted though, I probably also have a narrower scope of games I like than you do.

EA Sports is just one of the best at seeing how much crap they can throw at us.

I'm honestly shocked they are just doing this now. Seems like the sort of thing they would have done when this gen. started.
 
Last edited:
Since there are no new Nascar games and EA seems to close servers after very short time usually I don't buy their games anymore anyway.
This is just another terrible move from them and I hope others won't follow.
I'm usually more interested in online gaming than SP, so it would kinda affect me...
 
Yeah because EA gets so much money from you buying the game used.
They aren't killing their market, if they charged the first purchaser to get online, that would kill their market. They are merely protecting their market share, which BTW they have every right to do. Complaining about this is akin to complaining about false information on the internet, IMO it's not going away so get used to it.
Also EA was one of the first to give first purchaser's extra content and charge second hand owns for it. Same deal different wrapper.
 
Yeah because EA gets so much money from you buying the game used.
They aren't killing their market, if they charged the first purchaser to get online, that would kill their market. They are merely protecting their market share, which BTW they have every right to do. Complaining about this is akin to complaining about false information on the internet, IMO it's not going away so get used to it.
Also EA was one of the first to give first purchaser's extra content and charge second hand owns for it. Same deal different wrapper.
I see a clear difference between getting some extra content that doesn't limit your game if you don't have it and removing some form of functionality.

There was once an idea passed around to charge for the final level if you don't have the new-copy DLC code. This is just a different form of that.

And as a side note: I always buy my Tiger Woods games new. This move is enough to make me decide to not buy it at all.
 
And as a side note: I always buy my Tiger Woods games new. This move is enough to make me decide to not buy it at all.

Pretty much the same for me, although substitute NCAA Football/Madden for Tiger Woods.

I'm sure they are making plenty off of their DLC and cheats that they charge people for, this move is just greedy.
 
I see a clear difference between getting some extra content that doesn't limit your game if you don't have it and removing some form of functionality.

There was once an idea passed around to charge for the final level if you don't have the new-copy DLC code. This is just a different form of that.

And as a side note: I always buy my Tiger Woods games new. This move is enough to make me decide to not buy it at all.

I gave up on everything besides the NHL series (since nhl 09 was what made me buy a 360), years ago when they had to strike an exlusive deal with the NFLPA for players rights immediately afterer the 2k series made a better football game than they did. If you can't beat 'em, just make sure they don't make any more games...nice!
 
Add ModNation Racers PSP to the list of games using this kind of lunacy.

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010...ore-update-138/comment-page-6/#comment-407426

ModNation Racers PSP Online Entitlement ($14.99)
The Online Entitlement is used to activate the Online and Infrastructure features of the ModNation Racers game for the PSP system. For those purchasing the game second-hand, the entitlement will also need to be purchased and entered into a PSN account prior to activating the Infrastructure and Online features.
There you go, $15 to play online if you buy MNR PSP used. The full game is only $30, so if you save $5 or $10 buying it used you are actually paying more.

What makes this worse is that this game is based around the Race-Create-Share philosophy. Half the game is designed around the online community aspect.

Honestly, this is worst than what EA Sports is doing in my mind.
 
EA Sports is the devil.

And he has a name.... Peter Moore

:ouch:


Heck, he even looks a tad devilish now that I think about it...

peter-moore_1462782c.jpg


Oh, and no, his head was not photo-shopped into that picture. That was an official photo from EA given out to the press to be included with accompanying articles, like this one.
 
Last edited:
[empty space];3868586
so the short story is that evil game company's are encouraging people to buy new instead of new?
Encouraging people to buy new does not automatically make a game company bad, in fact the pre order bonuses and additional content concepts are great.

However, making it so that a major function of a game is turned off unless ou play 50% of the MSRP is, in my opinion, quite despicable.

The main reason why the past concepts of pre orders and additional DLC never really worked was that they eventually wound up selling them. What incentive was there pre order LBP when my Heavenly Sword DLC became available for purchase for far less than the game's new retail value had dropped?

What does work? Rock Band 2's model. New games have a voucher code for 20 free songs, an additional 25% content, but not having it doesn't break the game in any way. Those 20 songs still can't be found in any other way 2 years later.

Honestly, my fear is that if this continues what we will see will be eventually some company trying to place an access code in new games that activates your ability to play at all.


The biggest hassle I foresee with limiting some core functionality to new copies only is that it destroys the rental market.
 
Honestly, my fear is that if this continues what we will see will be eventually some company trying to place an access code in new games that activates your ability to play at all.

Like most things, other than essential products controlled by a monopoly, policies and prices are based on how the market responds to them.

If game developers and publisher's lose money due this or any other change they make to their products, they'll do something else. If on the other hand it's successful, unless we want to put an end to free enterprise... which as history has proven would be a very bad idea, then they made the right choice.

The best thing anyone can do is to use your wallet to send a message to companies.

If it turns out that the majority of people don't mind these restrictions and fees, then so be it.

Personally, as much as I don't like a lot of the decisions many of these companies make, as long as they aren't breaking any laws, I would be a lot more troubled if I lived in a country where free enterprise was prohibited.

After all, less any of us forget, it's there responsibility to their employees and shareholders to make money. It doesn't mean we have to like it, and if enough people refuse to go along, and or refuse to buy their products, then as history has also taught us, the market will force those companies to change.
 
Like most things, other than essential products controlled by a monopoly, policies and prices are based on how the market responds to them.

If game developers and publisher's lose money due this or any other change they make to their products, they'll do something else. If they make money, unless we want to put an end to free enterprise... which as history has proven would be a very bad idea, then the best thing anyone can do is to use your wallet to send a message to companies.
Which is why I have not said that I think it should be illegal. I have never said more than how I feel about the practice and that I will not give my cash to any franchise using it. If it becomes common practice for all games then I may have to rethink my stance, but so long as it is just EA Sports (who I rarely buy more than one thing from every three years anyway), THQ's UFC game, and ModNaton Racers using it then I am not punishing myself too much.

Besides, I have a huge backlog of games to catch up on right now anyway, so one less game is probably a good thing.
 
Besides, I have a huge backlog of games to catch up on right now anyway, so one less game is probably a good thing.

I know how you feel! I look at my trophy list and see soooo many games with 0 trophies and it is just a reminder how many games I have that I have yet had the time to play. :ouch:
 
Back