People aways told Me to beware of EA.....

I don't play EA games a lot but i always knew EA was about the money probaby more than Microsoft. Seem like If you purchase madden 11 or any new EA game with a online feature. You get a pass to verify that you can play online. Without this you cannot go online and have to buy one especially if its used.

This is a big No-no if and whenever other game publishers decide to do this WE ARE FUCKED BIG TIME!!! EA thinks it can make a killing to eliminate Used games. I knew the online transaction would come back to haunt us the moment the Xbox acted like a PC.

 

I tried to do the speedruns for Mirrors edge and was told I had to sign up on all their bullshit and I never bothered.

 

1. Most businesses, if not all of them, are "about the money." It seems you mean to imply that this is a bad/negative thing; I'm not sure I understand why that would be.

2. EA (and the company I work for, THQ) are trying to find ways to encourage people to buy games new using strategies like this because it means more money for them, yes. Gamestop, and the other companies that sell used games are trying to encourage people to buy games used because it means more money for them. Because those that buy their games used see the benefits of doing so diminished when strategies like this are implemented, there is anger towards the implementer. This is understandable. But I disagree with the interpretation that somehow it's due to the game publishers being malevolent.

3. The first game I worked on in the video game industry cost about 3 million dollars to make. I have worked on games since then that have cost upwards of ten times that amount to make. Sales of games, however, have not increased by anywhere near such a rate, and in many cases and for many genres, they've actually gone down. Some people call it a broken system of the publisher's creation, but I'm confident that not many consumers would buy the type of game 3 million dollars would get you in today's world. Game publishers need to make more money on the games they make to keep making games that people want, period.

4. I recently purchased Starcraft 2 - a PC game - from Blizzard using their online digital download service. I paid 60 bucks for this game, which is what I pay for a new console game. Unlike console game publishers, Blizzard pays no platform fee to Sony or Microsoft for the privilege of releasing a game on their system. Unlike console game publishers, Blizzard has no manufacturing and distribution fees to recoup due to using this digital download service. Unlike console game publishers, Blizzard splits no profit with the brick and mortar company that stocks their game on the shelf, because there is no physical game to stock. And yet, I paid 60 bucks for this game, with Blizzard passing none of this savings onto me. Is this evil?

 

Nope but its convenient. The inability to use a used game online is inconvenient. Give me my drive through window please.

 

You have the ability to use a used game online if you pay for it by buying a coupon/voucher/pass/etc. The functionality is not disabled, it simply comes at an extra fee.

The fee may be inconvenient to you, sure.

 

eh, mass effect is great... although thats bioware who were bought out by EA.

they need to find ways to make cheaper games.
honestly I don't need xbox360 graphics. i just need very very solid gameplay, or story.

or, more importantly, they just need to stop making shitty games. BOOHOO OUR BUSINESS IS DOING BADLY BECAUSE ONLY 1 OF OUR GAMES SELL. and I bet you that 1 game is the only game really good in that company (although this is rare, great companies have great products consistently usually).

I mean now adays games just plain old suck lol. They are all becoming more and more generic, and more and more like each other. Part of it may be because of increased production cost, which brings fear and makes people think they should just be like all the other games. Of course they end up copying only the shallow part of the game, and make a super shitty wannabe.
No one wants to take risks, and too many people are caught up on appealing to the casual which to them makes them think they can make half assed gamed as long as they have SUPER MOVES, and GIANT GUNS and HALF NAKED WOMEN.

of course there are exceptions.
there are some great games out this gen. just not that many. and probably not as great as last gen.

 

With All do respect FUCK EA. Its not our Fault they make shitty Games. You work for them so i expect you to Co-sign this bullshit. A Used was a Game that was purchased before regardless. Only one user can have that game at a time right. this is the reason NBA Live and Madden are shitty every year. Because you release a Upgrade to a bullshit game and charge full price to it the brag its a best seller when it the only Football game on the market. You watch the season before hand to see what was the focal point and create the series around it Example.. This Year is all about the Defense then Next year its all about the offense. EA also did some bullshit by Paying for the NFL liscense trying to create a monopoly which made Sony buy the MLB liscense in which you guys sold the MVP baseball engine to so you win both ways.

Please its not a inconvience because i don't by EA games. In fact the Last EA game i brought was Homecourt in 07 and that shit is garbage compared to Vol.2. Notice the trend here SixTwo?

whever EA is ready to make a game thats not like the other 20 games on the market then i might by it.

 

ummmmm I think sixtwo said he works at THQ.....not EA

 

he did.

also, what the hell does this mean:

 

Overfiend:
EA has had some massive backlash over this issue. But I bet you understand why they did this. So its not the principle you're against but rather the implementation?

Many people have also noted Bioware's solution as a better example, where the people who bought Mass Effect 2 new got access to a network with all kinds of nifty features and add-ons and those that bought it second hand didn't get access to that network but still got to play a complete game.

It'll be the same gig with physical copies of Starcraft 2, which need to be activated online. I could sell the disk back to a store without removing they key from my battle.net account, thus rendering the physical disc completely useless. Ideally stores would need to be able to reclaim these online keys and exchange them for new ones (and lock the old ones) so they could resell a used copy with consent from the company that produced the game.

Such systems are currently not yet in place and would require some hefty overhauls of store policies. So, like the DRM madness of yesteryear companies are jumping onto anti-resell-sharks like these in the hopes of increasing their return on investments.

I don't expect these kinds of systems to last very long as there are far more viable and less draconian alternatives.


In other news, Microsoft just screwed up X-Box live gold account fees up by a tenner.

 

plus or minus?

 

Here it is $50. Just got the announcement that it will go to $60. Then I got an offer to pay $40. So I renewed.

 

oh so it's just their new fee system. not a screw up

 

Personally, EA nowadays is fine by me. I like them more now than before at least. And I do think that in the recent past they have encouraged some of their developers to try to innovate.

At least FIFA has finally become a competitor and even dethroned Winning Eleven for awhile in the hearts of many who always complained that FIFA was all show (and license) and no substance.

Mirror's Edge was far from perfect, but at least DICE was allowed to do it.

Like most publishers, they also had to lay off a lot of developers too. Not ignoring that.

Regarding things like the Online Pass. It's not really a way to screw over the Used Market. It's a way to possibly make some revenue from some (not all) of the people who buy used games. At least EA has accepted Used games. Of course another way most publishers are dealing with the Used market, and postponing the greatest hits marketing, is Game of the Year Additions with free DLC included.

That said, I don't know why you have to "beware" of EA. They're not out to get you. But I understand if you don't like them ^_^

 

"screwed up" = increased

 

if people pay it then they've done their job.

 

Took the words right out of my mouth (fingertips?).

All companies are out to make money. If they didn't make as much money as they could, they wouldn't be able to create products for us to buy.

You should be upset at Gamestop when they give you $4.50 IN STORE CREDIT (so they keep your business for yet another transaction) for a game and then turn around and sell it back to people for 3 to 4 times that much. This is why I only "buy" used games when I plan on returning them for a full refund within 7 days and I rarely trade games in unless it is fairly new and I'm getting at least 30 bucks for it.

Think about it from the game developer/producer standpoint. 3 million people play your game, but because of used sales, you only get paid for 1.5 people playing it. That is half of the profit for a game you put money into creating going to a third party making about 150% profit off of your game (they get the profit of the original sale, and then again when they resell it used, with only the cost of giving you your trade in "value", assuming the used copy was purchased new at their store). Of course you will want to implement strategies to get people to buy your game new.

I guess the point is that if you want to get mad at someone for this whole situation, you should be mad at Gamestop for creating a system where the plan to have "online coupons" had to be created.

 

Fuck 'em, their strategy is to make certain parts of the game wholly their property, in contrast to the physical disc.


It concerns me as a consumer to not actually own the games you bought, in the sense that it is a transferable, tangible good. I buy games on Steam mostly because I find the above-mentioned point academic, but imagine if you had a vinyl collection you couldn't sell, because the content creators said 'the LP itself is a distribution service, not a good'. That's the kind of redefinition going on here when it comes to intellectual property. So, no, I see no ethical pull on my end to buy straight from the devs/publisher. I will just buy the game when/where it's cheapest. If that means gamestop, then by all means i will get it there.

 

So why not just pirate a copy? If you purchase a used game the developer gets nothing from that sale. And they get nothing beyond that unless you pay for optional DLC or expansions if there even are any for that game. You aren't supporting the artists and producers and developers when you buy used games. It's that simple.

If you refuse to buy a new game at retail and deliberately wait until a used copy is available then you don't deserve the luxuries afforded to people who purchase a new copy and put money back in the pockets of the developers.

Like it or not games cost lots of money. You can't make something like Heavy Rain, Grand Theft Auto, Demon's Souls, Mass Effect, and so on, without spending millions upon millions of dollars between production and marketing. For high quality titles, the really deep and innovative games with extended playability, a Fallout 3 or Valkyrica Chronicles, the price of $60 is necessary for the developers to recoup the costs of making said game and to further develop sequels and new franchises.

And $60 for an amazing title is honestly not asking much. Lots of people here spent upwards of $500 for getting a PS3, VSHG, and a copy of VF5 at launch. And then many of those same people went out and bought a 360, VF5 Online, and either modded a stick, or bought a 360 compatible stick just to play VF. Many of us purchased Japanese PS2s so we could play VF4:EVO on console a few months earlier because the American release date was delayed. That's hundreds of dollars just to play one single game.

Should all games be $60? No. A game that has limited replay ability, lower production values, and isn't a major AAA title, needs to be priced lower. Many games that do not deserve to be full priced titles are tagged at $60 unfairly which isn't right for consumers. But to say that it isn't your duty to reimburse the developers for playing their games is woefully shortsighted.

Are many games priced at $60 at retail not a fair price? Yes. Are many DLC titles with only a few hours of play worth $15? No they are not. But there are plenty of games that are fairly released at full price.

I still buy hundreds of vinyl records every year. But I always try to buy directly from the artists or original labels. If I can't find a record I'll contact the artist directly and offer to buy a digital master or acetate from them. Only if I am completely out of options, and I cannot find a piece of music elsewhere, will I go after a copy from an individual dealer or a place like eBay.

And yes EA sucks. There is no denying that.

 

Getting upset at GameStop seems a little silly. You don't have to take your old games there (especially if their business model irks you). Sell them on ebay. Also, I'm very mildly bummed that you purposely abuse the GameStop return policy.

Most of EmpNovA post =