Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Used Game To Survive? EA Plans To Drop Online Pass

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the bizarro-ea dept.

Games 74

Krazy Kanuck writes "Introduced in 2010, Online Pass was marketed as a way to 'preserve' online content or DLC as titles were sold in the used game market. Many saw this as a way to cut out the second hand game market. EA has now decided to end this program 'partly because the players didn't like it.' Unfortunately this appears to only be for future released games, those previously released will still be subject to this feature. Activision and Ubisoft still use this form of content control, it will be interesting to see if they follow suit."

cancel ×

74 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Of course... (4, Insightful)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741515)

What good's an online pass when they shut down the game's master server after a year?

Re:Of course... (2, Insightful)

Sylak (1611137) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741545)

because it was for console games, and those are more to the whim of the console's network maintainer than the publisher

Re:Of course... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43742037)

Uuh no, matchmaking servers run by EA for many older sports games (like 2011 and older) are no longer online so I hope you like single player mode.

This is why people should never EVER buy multiplayer games without a LAN host option.

Re:Of course... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743421)

Because a huge use case of console users is to get several consoles and TVs together in one house and have a LAN party. Many of these games, DEFINITELY sports games, are commodities that get old and no one wants to play them anymore.

Re:Of course... (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743761)

I know this sounds crazy, but you can directly connect 2 computers (or consoles) on the internet without needing a centralized 3rd party to make the connect. How nice would it be to be able to connect with my cousin's Xbox directly over internet so we could still play Grid against each other. I LOVED Grid, but i wont be buying Grid 2 because they shut down the multiplayer servers way too soon and were too apathetic to allow direct connect.

fuck (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43741517)

e.a.

didnt work (1)

luther349 (645380) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741527)

it also did not work company's like game stop would get you new keys for used games. in other words it did nothing to stop used sales.

Re:didnt work (1)

Xest (935314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741567)

That and their hand was probably forced somewhat, in the face of the recent European ruling that companies cannot artificially block or limit second hand software sales they'd have had to do this anyway.

Re:didnt work (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741699)

I'm not sure that's the case. I don't think a court has tested whether presenting part of the game content as a free bonus for the first sale is actually a breach of resale rules. I'd certainly hope that it would be considered that way for all but the most trivial content but it's not been addressed.

Re:didnt work (1)

vux984 (928602) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741847)

I don't think a court has tested whether presenting part of the game content as a free bonus for the first sale is actually a breach of resale rules.

Courts haven't even really properly tested whether the shrinkwrap license that says they didn't sell you anything but a license to use the software on the disk. A license that may or may not be transferrable or revokable. All you bought is a disk you may or may not be allowed to use.

Nor have they tested Steam's business model either. It looks like its a game is offered for sale, walks like a sale, quacks like sale... but its secretly a "perpetual subscription for a one time payment".

I should try selling my car like that. No, no its not really your car...yes, yes, you paid me $46,000 and I gave you the keys... so I can see how you thought you bought it, but you didn't. Your just renting, read the fine print! Now, you can't resell it, can't lend it to a friend, your wife and kids can't drive it either or I might just take it back.

(That's just wrong, and i say that as someone who generally likes steam's service... )

Re:didnt work (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741917)

Courts haven't even really properly tested whether the shrinkwrap license that says they didn't sell you anything but a license to use the software on the disk.

You may want to take a look at ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), and coming to a different conclusion, Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (D. Kan. 2000).

Re:didnt work (1)

vux984 (928602) | about a year and a half ago | (#43742487)

"[...] and coming to a different conclusion [...]"

That's sort of my point when I say "not properly tested", in that we still don't really know what's going to happen.

There's also...

United States v. Wise (9th Cir. 1977)
MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer (9th Cir. 1993)
Triad Sys. Corp. v. Southeastern Express Co. (9th Cir. 1995)
Wall Data v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. (9th Cir. 2006)

And when ruling on Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 2009, the district court found the precedents cited above to be in "direct, irreconcilable conflict".

The supreme court denied hearing the case in 2011. So yeah, happy days.

Then there's also MDY v Blizzard, and UMG vs Augusto

Re:didnt work (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#43742107)

and you have use me for all service work and only by my gas.

Re:didnt work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43746899)

Courts haven't even really properly tested whether the shrinkwrap license that says they didn't sell you anything but a license to use the software on the disk. A license that may or may not be transferrable or revokable. All you bought is a disk you may or may not be allowed to use.

What the license says is probably not very relevant. What it comes down to is what you were told before the purchase. If the store indicated that you bought the software (For example with big signs with the text "buy" or "purchase") then you own it or is the victim of fraud.

Re:didnt work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43741957)

it also did not work company's like game stop would get you new keys for used games. in other words it did nothing to stop used sales.

At an increased price which was just them buying the online pass for you. They pay for the 5 dollar pass and then increase the games cost by 5 dollars, or give less on the trade in to compensate for it. In the end a customer is paying for that pass and EA makes their profit.

If you actually think lamestop would just give you a free online pass for your used game then you are truly stupid and ignorant.

From the likes of EA, sure.... (4, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741541)

But EA doesn't encompass the entirety of the gaming industry. And while yes, many larger software and hardware companies are following suit with the hostility to consumers, this creates an amazing environment for indie game development companies to flourish.

Which, frankly, is exciting. I'm tired of the same ol' crap from companies too scared to take risks.

Re:From the likes of EA, sure.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43741865)

I'm tired of the same ol' crap from companies too scared to take risks.

Same ol' crap sure but do you know how much of a risk it is to churn out this rubbish then spend $30-40m
on bullshit to hide this fact from the public. Its not easy or cheap to buy good reviews, flood all available
advertising channels with enough bullshit and lies to bury the negative feedback... all the time knowing that
if the game gets pirated too much or more than a few reviewers have any integrity that the public will find
out within the 2-week window and it'll all fail.

I understand the general public is mostly comprised of mindless sheep but I cant help but admire the way
EA shits in everyone's face so well.

Re:From the likes of EA, sure.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43742221)

When did that become admirable? are you a psychopath?

Re:From the likes of EA, sure.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744085)

Which, frankly, is exciting. I'm tired of the same ol' crap from companies too scared to take risks.

I work in the video games industry at a company that sells games with online passes. We don't do it because we are "scared to take risks". We do it because we pay for servers and bandwidth and some costs per unique user. Every person who buys a used game and goes online ends up costing us money to support even if we didn't make any money from the sale of the game. The idea of the console-tied Online Pass is that we recoup some of that cost. Typical online pass is only $5-10 and we only get a fraction of that. It's really pretty close to a break-even cost for us (versus a small loss otherwise) if you count all the support in incorporating the tech into the game as well.

Re:From the likes of EA, sure.... (1)

mattventura (1408229) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744665)

That's extremely faulty logic. How does someone selling/giving away a used game cost you more than that same person continuing to play the game themselves?

Re:From the likes of EA, sure.... (1)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | about a year and a half ago | (#43747775)

I would love an answer to your question as well.

Re:From the likes of EA, sure.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43747921)

Because the original purchaser will eventually stop playing the game online

Re:From the likes of EA, sure.... (1)

unr3a1 (1264666) | about a year and a half ago | (#43750611)

Of course the original purchasers stopped playing.

He doesn't have the game anymore you twit.

Think of it this way. Say I am the one millionth person to purchase a game to play online. If I sell or give my copy to someone else who goes to play online, I have stopped playing since I no longer have the game. The person who got the game from me is now the one millionth person online. Doing some arithmetic, 1,000,000 + 1 (the player I sold the game to) - 1 (being me the person who stopped playing) = 1,000,000. Math shows that you had one million players before the game got sold second hand to someone else, and that after the game was sold, you still had only one million players online (not one million and one).

What this looks like is a developer/publisher looking to get paid TWICE for ONE game license. And if that second person decides to sell it second hand to a third person, then that's the developer/publisher getting paid THREE times for ONE game license.

As a developer/publisher, you already sold that copy of the game. What the customer does with that game copy, either selling it or giving it away to someone else, as long as he/she didn't copy it, is not doing anything illegal or ethically wrong and frankly it's none of your business.

Re:From the likes of EA, sure.... (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744857)

The risks I am referring to are that of game types, not payment models. Does your game REQUIRE online access? And I mean really require it; not a marketing directive to the programming team to hobble the game ( latest simcity )?

Because if you sold an online game, you can charge monthly access fees. While the F2P MMOs are doing well, the monthly access fee is still prominent enough as to be something people wouldn't mind paying for, if your game is worth it. Myself, I think there is a niche for both the F2P and the monthly access model. Sometimes I don't want to be hobbled with microtransactions to finish a game. Sometimes I don't mind 2 bucks here, 5 bucks there, to play a game.

Re:From the likes of EA, sure.... (1)

sixsixtysix (1110135) | about a year and a half ago | (#43745745)

bullshit.

Umm... (3, Insightful)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741579)

" Unfortunately this appears to only be for future released games, those previously released will still be subject to this feature"

Will they or will free codes be made available? There seems to be no concrete information on this anywhere.

Re:Umm... (1)

Krazy Kanuck (1612777) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741679)

" Unfortunately this appears to only be for future released games, those previously released will still be subject to this feature"

Will they or will free codes be made available? There seems to be no concrete information on this anywhere.

Everything I have read on this today states "going forward" or "in the future", which would suggest that they do not plan to redact the existing program for existing games, most likely due to the cost involved to patch, or I would assume. So to answer your question, no I do not have any concrete evidence that would truly support that, though you'll note I prefaced it with "it appears".

Re:Umm... (1)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741815)

I wouldn't expect them to patch anything - just insert a generic unlimited use code which will authenticate any game on their end. I hope that's what they'll do but I somehow doubt it ;)

Re:Umm... (1)

holostarr (2709675) | about a year and a half ago | (#43742771)

I assume the reason why they are not doing this for their previous titles is to avoid having to either anger existing customers who bought the code or have to refund them.

Re:Umm... (2)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year and a half ago | (#43742131)

Either way the big news here is this ...
EA did something that was not completely and truly horrible!

That is news.

The Other Shoe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43741585)

I can't imagine that EA have suddenly grown a sense of basic ethics. I'll be waiting for whatever worse system they've though up to be announced.

Re:The Other Shoe (2)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741645)

They also went out of their way to say Sims 4 will have no always-on requirement, unlike the new Sim City. I think the backlash took them a bit by surprise.

I think the customer service calls (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | about a year and a half ago | (#43746677)

took 'em by more surprise. Even if their support sucks it's still there and it still costs money. It's a simple equation: we made X more sales to pirates and it cost Y in support and server maintenance. Which is bigger?

Re:The Other Shoe (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744963)

They realised its pointless as new consoles they are relesing games for wont allow used games anyway. Dumb people will think better of them, but the actual gamers know it makes no difference.

DLC is more lucrative (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741663)

I must've spent £50-80 on Mass Effect 2 and 3 story modules and I didn't build up a simmering hatred of EA in the process. I dare say that DLC makes enough money that online passes aren't worth it.

Come to think of it, can you even buy the story DLC without an Online Pass? It'd be a spectacular bit of foot-shooting if they put in a £15 barrier to the player spending money on things they might actually want.

Not pissed off?!?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43741887)

Really? You weren't among the pissed off masses that hated the fact that key plot points and story beats in Mass Effect 3 that explained everything were behind paywalls?

Personally I hate that shit! Alternate costumes in fighting games used to be incentives to play, now they're $3.99 per character. The Konami code used to give me weapons and extra lives. Now I have to pay to get such an advantage in a game. What if I just want to see what the game has to offer without any extraneous effort? I can't play the game the way I want without having to shell out more $$$ even after I paid full price? Fuck this shit.

Re:Not pissed off?!?!? (1)

Elldallan (901501) | about a year and a half ago | (#43742141)

Really? You weren't among the pissed off masses that hated the fact that key plot points and story beats in Mass Effect 3 that explained everything were behind paywalls? What key plot points is that? (Are you referring to From Ashes or something else? I had a preordered collectors edition so if it's anything that came bundled with that I obviously missed that it wasn't part of the package)
Most of the pissed off masses hated ME3 because of the pathetic godchild ending(and I still do hate that part, it makes absolutely no sense and breaks established canon and whatnot)

Re:Not pissed off?!?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743367)

Most of the pissed off masses hated ME3 because of the pathetic godchild ending(and I still do hate that part, it makes absolutely no sense and breaks established canon and whatnot)

Funnily enough I still like the ME3 ending way more than the fight with the protoreaper at the end of ME2.

There was too little variation between the ending possibilities I felt (the "decision climax" of the series for me was Rannoch, with Tuchanka a close second), but that was really my main objection with the end per se. The Catalyst was a huge deus ex machina IMO, but that was a problem with the whole game, not the end.

But god, the protoreaper fight? I felt like I stepped into some crappy B movie or something. I thought it was way out of place and is one of the reasons that ME2 is by far my least favorite of the series.

Re:Not pissed off?!?!? (2)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743401)

But god, the protoreaper fight? I felt like I stepped into some crappy B movie or something.

But that's what I thought of the whole Mass Effect franchise... a mess of unskippable cut-scenes written by a frustrated wannabe SyFy Channel director.

Re:Not pissed off?!?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743517)

[I'm the GP]

I really liked the first one, and the last one was pretty good. The first one had two different conversations that made the hair on the back of my neck stand up; that's not something I can say about any other game I can think of. (Maybe the KOTOR reveal?)

Re:Not pissed off?!?!? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743809)

At the time it came out, Mass Effect 1 was groundbreaking for a console title.

Re:Not pissed off?!?!? (1)

mjwx (966435) | about a year and a half ago | (#43747323)

At the time it came out, Mass Effect 1 was groundbreaking for a console title.

Highlighting the operative part of that sentence.

For PC players the graphics were like being back in 2000 and we've had story games like that since the 90's. The graphics on ME1 committed a cardinal sin, tried to kill the player with bloom.

But credit where credit is due, it had a good story in an industry where there is a serious dearth of good writing. But this is to be expected from the company that made the KOTOR games (RIP Bioware).

I'm just glad they did something about the unskipable cut scenes in Mass Effect 2 on the PC. I understand why they wouldn't bother on consoles as by the time the cut scene has finished the console hasn't even finished loading. ME3's ending was not as bad as all the ME fanboys whinged about. It did something so few gaming series did, bought closure.

Re:Not pissed off?!?!? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#43749501)

Well, that's just it. The additional content was framed in such a way that my opposition to it as a concept exists at an intellectual level, and not an emotional one, while my will to play the "next part" of the story exists at a sufficiently immediate emotional level that I wind up going ahead and getting it on the spur of the moment (say when it goes half price, as I did with Leviathan).

It helps that a lot of it is really, really good and came long, long after the game itself. It's easier to grudge Javik than Citadel and the overpricing on one certainly outbalances the underpricing of the other.

Re:DLC is more lucrative (1)

mackil (668039) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741937)

I think you're onto something there, with the DLC's being more lucrative.

I was one of the "suckers" who bought Mass Effect 1 & 2 when Steam had them on sale. And just like EA predicted, once I reached the end of 2, I wanted to know how it all ended. So not only did they get me as a very reluctant Origin user, but they also have me seriously considering purchasing the Mass Effect 3 DLC's (which are still full price). Much more profitable and it doesn't upset your customer base (well, as much).

Dammit EA.... well played.

Re:DLC is more lucrative (2)

zlives (2009072) | about a year and a half ago | (#43742727)

funny :)
steam is the gateway drm...

Re:DLC is more lucrative (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744059)

funny :)
steam is the gateway drm...

Mass Effect 2 isn't on Steam any more because Valve wasn't happy about DLC for it only being sold by EA through an in-game store.

To clarify: It's not that it had an in-game store they disagreed with, only that users couldn't pay for it from their Steam wallets.

Re:DLC is more lucrative (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743815)

If its not on Steam or DRM free, it doesnt exist to my computer.

Re:DLC is more lucrative (1)

mackil (668039) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744719)

Yeah I was that way too until I completed Mass Effect 2. Stay strong.

Re:DLC is more lucrative (1)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743373)

Personally I now wait until the full game with all DLC included is on sale for $5. The only game I've bought on release (actually, pre-release) in the last few years is Guild Wars 2, because you can't avoid DLC in MMOs.

So it's costing them money from me.

Re:DLC is more lucrative (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#43749479)

EA obviously doesn't do all-DLC-included editions of these games for just that reason.

Perhaps... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43741845)

They will go even further and get rid of their Origin requirement to play games. I refuse to install that crap as it collects WAY more data then I want anyone to have. Steam doesn't collect nearly the amount of data on my computer that Origin does, plus Steam lets you OPT out of it.

This has prevented me from buying any EA games for several years now. Which is a real shame as I love the Battlefield series and have not been able to play version 3 or 4 when it comes out, due to the Origin crap. It is just lost money for them.

You're still buying access, not a game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43742069)

Buying by Steam is still only buying you conditional access to the game, not the game, not even a license to play the game (if not a Valve title).

So "Steam is better than Origin" is like being shot in the chest and killed that way is better than being eaten alive by rats. Big Whoop.

I wish they would've gone further (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741853)

Personally I don't play online, so I was happy to pick up games for a deeper discount when I bought them used. Since they didn't include online anymore, used stores had to price them lower, so that was great.

More often though, I buy my games new, so I wish EA had actually taken this even further. They could have just priced the games at $50 and asked for an extra $10 if you wanted the online, instead of charging $60 for everything bundled together. That way I wouldn't have to foot the bill for the development of something I didn't want anyway. I think gamers would have been overall happier, and EA could have still charged for the online component separately like they wanted to.

Used games still over (2)

HalAtWork (926717) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741903)

The reason the online pass existed was to get $10 out of people that would buy games used. If they can't buy used games anymore, what's the point of the online pass? So yeah, they'll drop it, AND you won't be able to buy games used. The headline is stupid.

You can think of it two ways... (1)

gameboyhippo (827141) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741931)

Either
1: It's no longer necessary because the next gen consoles from Sony and Microsoft will have some sort of way of limiting used game sales
And/Or
2: EA is missing out on a lot of revenue by taking its ball and going home.

Re:You can think of it two ways... (1)

dstyle5 (702493) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744267)

While not confirmed anywhere yet (I don't believe) the ability to block used games on the upcoming consoles at the publishers whim has been rumored for a while now.

Good Riddance (3, Insightful)

medv4380 (1604309) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741961)

I've never bought an online pass and never will. I won't even tough BioShock Infinite because of the Season Pass on the shelves at GameStop. I'll wait until the games drops in price and all relevant dlc comes bundled. I will not by and Online Pass, Season Pass, or any other such money grab nonsense. They can take their project 10 dolla, and eat it. However, I suspect this is just getting rid of one demon and replacing it with another.

Re:Good Riddance (2)

vux984 (928602) | about a year and a half ago | (#43742213)

Pretty much this. Its gotten to the point that I don't even look at new releases. I'll wait 6-8 months until all the obviously pre-planned DLC is out and then I'll buy it on sale at steam bundled with all the DLC, usually includes the "pre-order DLC" too if applicable.

I used to buy games and then x-pacs, but the money grubbing has reached the point that realease day is really just the beginning of a staggered launch.

I can wait 3-6 months and get the whole thing bundled together.

Feature? (1)

olip85 (1770514) | about a year and a half ago | (#43742065)

Unfortunately this appears to only be for future released games, those previously released will still be subject to this feature.

How can that be called a feature?

Online pass was a good idea. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43742163)

Lets face facts. For games to be played online the developer and or publisher have to pay to keep the servers running. It costs them manpower, bandwidth, hardware/resources, maintenance, time, energy, electricity and development costs. So to take advantage of that online gaming the consumer has to pay at least something because to just think a dev/pub should shell out each month for years on end is a bit silly.

Say you buy madden used. EA doesn't see a single penny off that. That person then proceeds to play it online on and off for a year EA loses that little bit of money and over time that hurts them. But if that person pays just 5 dollars for an online pass then it helps offset their costs meaning they can run the server longer for everyone. And 5 dollars for a years worth, or hell even a couple months worth of playing time online is a pittance to pay for so much entertainment. 5 dollars doesn't buy much entertainment anymore.

Everything costs money and nothing is free in the truest sense of word. Especially when it comes to big games from big companies. I see a lot of comments where people say "Oh they make a lot of money off DLC and game sales blah blah" but they had to pay to make all those DLC and games.

The real problem is gamers feel somehow entitled to this or that for free. That they shouldn't have to pay for a product, or only pay for what they feel they should. If you bought games new and the devs and pubs got the money they should then things like this would never crop up. But most gamers don't want to pay full price, they want to buy something used at a big discount and still expect to get the same treatment as if they bought a new product. "EA I bought this game used and you didn't get any money from it but I still expect you should let me play it free online at your expense because I am a customer!" when in reality you aren't EA's customer and they don't owe you a thing. That's as stupid as buying a used refrigerator from some guy on craigslist and expecting the manufacturer to give you the same warranty as buying it new directly from them.

If you don't like EA that's fine (although 90% of that hate is unfounded and expressed simply because its the cool thing to do now) then don't buy their games. But don't buy them used and then expect to be treated as if you actually gave the company itself money by buying it new.

Face it, when you buy a game used it is used. How hard is that to figure out? If you bought it new and still had to buy an online pass to play it online separately then that's one thing, but you didn't, you only had to pay 5 bucks to play online for used games.

Youre all the same people who go to a coffee shop and use their free wifi all the time but never buy a single thing from them and then probably complain when they say buy something or leave as if you think youre entitled to use their internet connection they pay for free without actually giving them anything in return. You forget a business is in business to make money, not give you whatever you want for nothing.

Re:Online pass was a good idea. (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about a year and a half ago | (#43742359)

Go home, Riccitiello. You're drunk.

Re:Online pass was a good idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743957)

Person A likes Madden and paid full price ($60) for it. He plays for 5 years. The online pass that comes with the game is effectively paying $1 per year.

Person B buys Madden and paid full price ($60) for it. He plays for 3 years, then gives the game to his younger brother. The younger brother plays for 2 years. The online pass that comes with the game is effectively paying $1 per year.

Person C buys Madden and paid full price ($60) for it. He plays for 1 year. He finds that it didn't change anything this year. He sells the game to a friend. The friend plays it for 4 years. The online pass that comes with the game is effectively paying $1 per year.

Which one of the three people is entitled? The friend who buys used and plays online with a pass that already contributed to the server costs? The little brother who plays his older brother's copy when he's not playing? Or is it person A for having the audacity to use a paid service?

Where does the server suddenly see more cost? In all three scenarios, the server sees the load of 1 single purchased copy using what was paid. Should the little brother pay for an additional online pass? The server would then be paid 4 times when it only sees the load of 3 purchased copies. The little brother didn't steal anything in this situation. When the little brother is playing, the older brother is not able to play simultaneously since the online pass is occupied. How is this any different from the friend who buys used? Person C doesn't have his copy of Madden anymore, so there isn't any additional server load from the friend.

You may have a point if pirating was involved. But this isn't about piracy. This is about buying and selling used legal copies.

All I see is an idiot who wants to go around calling people "entitled" despite whatever evidence that is presented. That or a really obvious shill (that still likes to call people "entitled." One who also forgets the apostrophe in the word "you're" despite going through all the effort of writing it out.)

Re:Online pass was a good idea. (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about a year and a half ago | (#43747287)

I buy games new, but wait until they're $20 or under.

What this likely *really* means... (4, Interesting)

Funk_dat69 (215898) | about a year and a half ago | (#43742343)

On the surface this may look like EA is giving up it's quest to kill used games. I find that rather unlikely.

What this likely *really* means, is that 'online pass' will soon be redundant. With ps4 and the next xbox soon to be out, this moves all but confirms that there will be something similar at the system level on both consoles, likely with publisher-friendly terms so they can share in on the ransom windfall.

EA is shutting down theirs early to try and save face and let Sony and MS look like the jerks next gen, when in reality, it was probably their idea and lobbying that forced Sony and MS's hands.

So..yippie?

Re:What this likely *really* means... (1)

dstyle5 (702493) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744395)

"it was probably their idea and lobbying that forced Sony and MS's hands."

Yes, I'm sure EA crammed it down their unwilling throats, with a smelly yet gold-encrusted plunger taken from Riccitiello's gold-plated water closet.

Why would Microsoft or Sony care about losing revenue from used game sales? The full revenue they get from a new game sale and the $7 license fee for 3rd party games, who would want that money?

Re: What this likely *really* means... (1)

Funk_dat69 (215898) | about a year and a half ago | (#43748209)

Sheesh..so maybe 'forced' was an overlly strong word to use.
But consider: EA may not have the clout they once had, but they are still one of the largest game publishers in the world and you still want them making games for your fledgling console, I think. And if 'the other console' may be giving them what they want, you are likely to consider the same.

But this is maybe more likely: MS and Sony saw 'online pass' and decided they want that money instead of EA. It's their network after all. The console guys give the publishers a small cut, which the publishers are happy with since it's enforced platform-wide and managed by network, which costs the publishers nothing. It's just free money. Everyone wins! Except for the gamer, of course, but they're probably filthy thieves anyway.

Still seem hard to believe?

"partly because the players didn't like it" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43742399)

partly??? really? only partly?

now just get rid of the rest of the fucking one-time-use serials, origin, and mandatory online registrations.. across ALL platforms..

and maybe, just maybe you won't lose so many customers.

and oh, yea.. fix the fucking online requirement in simcity. the cat's out of the bag, its NOT required for single player. you really thought that would never get figured out? duuuude. welcome to the age of the internets.

Re: "partly because the players didn't like it" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43745311)

Fucking entitled console kiddies. PC had been paying for "online passes" for years. They're called CD keys...

Resale Economics (3, Informative)

ThinkThis (912378) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743015)

I think the game / console companies are not considering the upside of resellable games. When a kid on a budget decides to splurge $60 for a game, they do so knowing that they have the option to recover a portion of that money later on. If they love the game they keep it longer if not they dump it. The bottom line is that knowing you can get some of your money back makes it easier to take the risk of buying that pricey item. Imagine buying a new car with a new resell license. The value of the car would be diminished and the confidence to purchase would be lower. Sure Toyota won't make any money if I resell that Camry, but they got more money at sale time because as a buyer I see value in the ability to resell.

Re: Resale Economics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43745333)

You brought a car analogy to a game discussion. Bravo.

Reselling games is stupid and always has been. It's almost as bad as pawning them. Gamestop brainwashed many people like you.

Re: Resale Economics (1)

Raenex (947668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43747399)

Reselling games is stupid and always has been.

Because you say so? I've sold many games for around half-price, games that otherwise would have sat collecting dust.

Gamestop brainwashed many people like you.

GameStop being a terrible place to buy or sell used games. EBay is a much better deal, for both the buyer and seller.

Digital Downloads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743749)

The PC market has largely gone to digital downloads in which most services do not allow transfer of that game to another party. I believe this generation of console games will strengthen the move in that direction, and the following generation of consoles will become digital download only.

The used games market will dry up.

Saints Row: The Third Online Pass sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43760063)

The "Online Pass" for Saints Row: The Third effectively prevents people without internet from playing offline multiplayer with a LAN, as it's impossible to access the LAN multiplayer without going online to redeem/buy the Online Pass.

cheap jordan shoes jordan shoes wholesale handbag (-1, Flamebait)

poiuweng (2928219) | about a year ago | (#43778751)

YOU MUST NOT MISS IT! The website cheap wholesale and retail for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan, also including the handbags,sunglasses,jeans,shirts,hat,belt and the watch, All the products are free shipping, and the price is competitive, after the payment, can ship within short time. the goods are shipping by air express, such as EMS,DHL,the shipping time is in 5-7 business days! http://www.sport3trade.net/ [sport3trade.net] cheap jordan for $40, Air Max 90 for $41, air shox for $40, best handbags for $39, Sunglasses for $18, wallet for $19, belt for $18, T-shirts for $20, Jeans for $39, NFL/MLB/NBA jersey for $25, Top Rolex watch,jordan for cheap, http://www.sport3trade.net/ [sport3trade.net]
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?