EA's "Project 10 Dollars"
Jonah Falcon
Tom
"Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:KJidnbX-rfsytOfW...@earthlink.com...
> http://www.tomsguide.com/us/ea-project-ten-dollars-dlc,news-5797.html
You know, I really don't have a problem with this really. I mean, they are
in this to make money and when someone sells a game used for much cheaper
than retail, or worse yet, gives it away free, they get the content free. IF
all there is to this is just a $10 fee to access the extra content, it is
still much cheaper than buying the game retail, even if it is at a reduced
price.
PBDepot
> "Jonah Falcon" <jonahny...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
The only problem is it cheapens the resell value for the original
buyer. If I bought a game new for $60 and then wanted to sell it later
on the down the road, it's value would automatically be decreased by
$10 for me since the new owner would probably end up paying the fee at
some point. Granted you're not forced to pay the $10 for the extra
content, but with the way companies are holding out vital portions of
the games these days and calling them "extra content", I imagine it
will become a necessity eventually.
I do understand EA's dilemma on this issue, and they of course can do
whatever they want. All I'm saying is I hope they weighed the cost of
brand name and consumer loyalty against the extra $10 they think
they'll get from used game purchases. Half the used games people buy
are barely worth $10-$30 as it is, so another $10 could easily sway
many people form buying these games and ultimately sour them on EA
products altogether.
At some point it will just come down to the fact that EA games in the
long run will really cost $70 minimum instead of the usual $60, and
their used games will now have to be priced accordingly. Consumers
will then just have to decide if said games are worth the extra
premium or not.
Tom
"PBDepot" <chu...@paintball-depot.com> wrote in message
news:9fa1beb2-a70b-4960...@t17g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
How is it automatically decreased and cheapen the resell value? You sell the
game for what it is deemed worth at the time. If you sell it privately, you
sell it for what it is worth for you as well. It is up to the buyer to buy
it or not, even under the understanding of what needs to be done for DLC,
etc. from the game maker. But, if that person wanted to spend even $20 for
the game retail (typically when it get less than Platinum sales price) when
it is probably going to be at its cheapest, they still are saving money. If
that person said no, then they will spend more for retail.
Trevor Smithson
>
>
>"Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:KJidnbX-rfsytOfW...@earthlink.com...
>> http://www.tomsguide.com/us/ea-project-ten-dollars-dlc,news-5797.html
>
Just the thing to push more people into piracy, which will ultimately
result in fewer good games for the rest of us.
People should push back, hold out, and by God never buy this sort of
bullshit DLC.
PBDepot
I know, I said the same thing, it's up to the buyer. But when that
buyer is deciding between two similarly priced used games, and they
know one's automatically gonna be $10 over the used shelf price, I
believe that could affect a person's decision. Less people buying EA
games is bad for EA, used or not.
Obviously this is just speculation of the worse case scenario for EA
on my part and you could totally be right, but I won't believe it
until I see it.
Tom
"Trevor Smithson" <trevor_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e35mn5lcg22gea61n...@4ax.com...
It really isn't important whether or not you like it or not, even for me as
well. They are in this to make money. It cost money to make DLC, so why
would anyone think it should be free. People can push back all they want,
all that would happen would be no DLC. Should people get free maps for COD
games at the expense of the developer (as an example)?
Doug Jacobs
> http://www.tomsguide.com/us/ea-project-ten-dollars-dlc,news-5797.html
Wait a second, I'm a bit confused here.
EA is somehow locking away part of the original game unless the 2nd hand
owner forks over $10 to EA?
Is that even be considered legal in the US? So if I go buy a used copy of
Dragon Age from Gamestop, it won't let me play certain areas unless I pay $10
more to EA? At that point, I'd take the game back to Gamestop, complain it's
incomplete and/or broken, and ask they give me a properly working copy.
If none of their used copies work, then they better pull a new copy off
the wall and hand it to me, or it's off to court we go.
Furthermore, since when is it legal for a publisher to be paid from the
legal second hand sale of property? That'd be like Toyota or Ford
demanding every money from every sale of a previously owned car of
theirs. The game was already purchased once - all that Gamestop, or a
private seller on eBay, is doing is transfering the license. EA's
proposal seems to get in the way of this otherwise legally protected
right.
--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.
Doug Jacobs
> You know, I really don't have a problem with this really. I mean, they are
> in this to make money and when someone sells a game used for much cheaper
> than retail, or worse yet, gives it away free, they get the content free. IF
> all there is to this is just a $10 fee to access the extra content, it is
> still much cheaper than buying the game retail, even if it is at a reduced
> price.
Imagine having to pay Honda an extra $1000 when you buy that used Accord from
a neighbor. That's essentially what EA is doing here.
If I buy a game that comes on physical media, then I am allowed to
transfer ownership of the license to that information contained within as
I see fit. If that means selling the game for $5, or even lending it to a
friend for free - so long as I'm not violating copyright law, what I do
with MY copy of the item is MY business.
Anyways, this $10 charge now means that most used copies would cost MORE
than the same game new. It doesn't make sense. I expect Gamestop is
going to be quite upset about this, as it basically threatens their entire
business model. Should be interesting to watch the clash of the lawyers.
Doug Jacobs
> I do understand EA's dilemma on this issue, and they of course can do
> whatever they want. All I'm saying is I hope they weighed the cost of
> brand name and consumer loyalty against the extra $10 they think
> they'll get from used game purchases. Half the used games people buy
> are barely worth $10-$30 as it is, so another $10 could easily sway
> many people form buying these games and ultimately sour them on EA
> products altogether.
EA faces the same problem that all publishers of media face with regards
to the second hand market. Heck, video games have it better than books,
CDs and movies because lending libraries don't carry them. Yet despite
public libraries, the publishing industry still manages to publish 1000s
of books each year and make a hefty profit. Same for CDs and DVDs. Those
industries learned to adapt and make money despite people lending or
buying 2nd hand copies. If EA wants to improve their revenues, they can
do the same.
Making lenders or 2nd hand buyers pay them for content that's already on
the disc, however, is not the way to do this.
> At some point it will just come down to the fact that EA games in the
> long run will really cost $70 minimum instead of the usual $60, and
> their used games will now have to be priced accordingly. Consumers
> will then just have to decide if said games are worth the extra
> premium or not.
--
RKRM
"Doug Jacobs" <dja...@rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:H56dnbupM5OQp-bW...@posted.rawbandwidth...
The most ridiculous thing about this is the fact that EA is charging for the
right to access DLC. I assume there would be a charge for the DLC. So if I
buy DLC and then sell the game and the next dude buys DLC they just made two
DLC sales off one game. Dumb-fucks. I won't proclaim to never buy EA again.
I already swore off Madden but ME3? No effin' way. It will kill any impulse
purchases I may have made though. I will be damn sure that I just can't live
without it before I buy any game with this bullshit scenario attached to it.
Doug Jacobs
> How is it automatically decreased and cheapen the resell value? You sell the
> game for what it is deemed worth at the time. If you sell it privately, you
> sell it for what it is worth for you as well. It is up to the buyer to buy
> it or not, even under the understanding of what needs to be done for DLC,
> etc. from the game maker. But, if that person wanted to spend even $20 for
> the game retail (typically when it get less than Platinum sales price) when
> it is probably going to be at its cheapest, they still are saving money. If
> that person said no, then they will spend more for retail.
The problem is, this doesn't apply to extra DLC. That's under a separate
license and when you buy it, you understand that it is not transferable to
another person.
What this applies to is the gaming experience you purchased when you
bought the copy of the game at retail. If you want to sell (or lend) that
same experience to someone else, they'll have to pay an additional $10 to
unlock certain features. I'm guessing the "certain features" bit will
vary from title to title here, but the effect will be the same - in order
for a 2nd hand user to play the same game you did, they'll have to pay $10
to EA.
If you ask me, this is essentially a variant on the "silvering" scheme
from DiVX (the defunct disc format - not the nifty video codec) All DiVX
discs were essentially pay-per-view, but for an extra fee, an owner could
"silver" the disc, which would allow him to play it an unlimited number of
times - but only on HIS player. If he took a silvered disc to a friend's
house, it would still behave as a pay-per-view disc, unless the friend
ALSO paid the extra money to silver the disc for his player. It's also
one of the reasons DiVX died a much deserved ignoble death.
Now it seems EA wants to do the same thing. Essentially, all their game
discs will be about as useful as a game demo. To unlock the full version
- but only for your console - you'll have to pay EA. Only in this case,
the retail version comes with 1 "free" silvering. What happens if that
user's game console dies? Can these licenses be transfered somehow, or
will suddenly the first-hand owner suddenly find himself in posession of a
bunch of really expensive demo discs - each requiring a new $10 unlocking
fee?
Doug Jacobs
> Just the thing to push more people into piracy, which will ultimately
> result in fewer good games for the rest of us.
>
big publishers are left, seem all too happy to put what few legitimate
customers through ridiculous DRM requirements which has no effect on the
pirates whatsoever. If anything it drives more people to piracy or
illegal tactics to use hacks to "fix" a program they've already
legitimately bought.
Going all-digital will sort of make this issue moot, but we're no where
near the point where consoles could realistically make that leap. PCs may
be ahead in this area, but not without encountering several large hiccups
along the way.
Jordan
> Wait a second, I'm a bit confused here.
>
> EA is somehow locking away part of the original game unless the 2nd hand
> owner forks over $10 to EA?
You know how most games these days have a "Downloadable Content" menu?
If you buy a used copy of Mass Effect 2 then you have to pay to access
the menu called "Downloadable Content". This is not a fee for the
content itself, it's a fee just to enter the menu. A cover charge if
you will. Then you still have to pay for the content you find inside.
- Jordan
Tom
"Doug Jacobs" <dja...@rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:jaWdnYOAk5cboubW...@posted.rawbandwidth...
Doug, I understand what EA is doing when they charge for the extra fee for
the used game. What is wrong with charging for I when in the end it is
still cheaper to buy a game used then pay a fee for DLC you and everyone, no
matter, still has to pay for. Even if the person could buy the game retail
at its cheapest, which would be around $20 after a long period of time after
release, they are still saving money if they get it used from Ebay or even
free from a friend. EA is just making money that isn't normally the way of a
person buying the game retail. Ultimately, it comes down to choice anyway.
>
> If you ask me, this is essentially a variant on the "silvering" scheme
> from DiVX (the defunct disc format - not the nifty video codec) All DiVX
> discs were essentially pay-per-view, but for an extra fee, an owner could
> "silver" the disc, which would allow him to play it an unlimited number of
> times - but only on HIS player. If he took a silvered disc to a friend's
> house, it would still behave as a pay-per-view disc, unless the friend
> ALSO paid the extra money to silver the disc for his player. It's also
> one of the reasons DiVX died a much deserved ignoble death.
>
Not even the same
> Now it seems EA wants to do the same thing. Essentially, all their game
> discs will be about as useful as a game demo. To unlock the full version
> - but only for your console - you'll have to pay EA. Only in this case,
> the retail version comes with 1 "free" silvering. What happens if that
> user's game console dies? Can these licenses be transfered somehow, or
> will suddenly the first-hand owner suddenly find himself in posession of a
> bunch of really expensive demo discs - each requiring a new $10 unlocking
> fee?
>
It's not tied to the console Doug, it is tied to the gamertag. We covered
this before, I have had four consoles now, and I have been able to download
a use all of the DLCs I have purchased long ago.
Tom
And I really don't see the issue with this at all. IF one buys the
game used, then EA, MS, Sony, etc don't make money on the licenses.
But then you think their services should be there for those to use
them without ever having to have paid for the license (buying retail).
In the end, no one is forced to pay for the service, but they also
choose not to get any of the game extras when they come out.
Jordan
> And I really don't see the issue with this at all. IF one buys the
> game used, then EA, MS, Sony, etc don't make money on the licenses.
> But then you think their services should be there for those to use
> them without ever having to have paid for the license (buying retail).
> In the end, no one is forced to pay for the service, but they also
> choose not to get any of the game extras when they come out.
Then charge for the content. Charging for the menu to access the
content is petty.
- Jordan
Tom
You're missing the point. The companies I listed lose money when a
game is resold, so why should they feel the obligation to sell the
content when they didn't make money from the license of the sale.
That's why one doesn't have to pay a fee for access if they buy it
retail. Even then, as I already stated, it is still cheaper to pay for
the access than to buy a retail game anyway.
AFAIK, this is only an issue for console games, since one doesn't have
to use a product key to play the game, like on a PC.
Jonah Falcon
"Tom" <jimv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0d3564ff-2eeb-4b7b...@y33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Tom
any company (Did you not notice that I mentioned your company god,
MS?). It's sad that your only take on the discussion are remarks like
this, considering you write a rather lame gaming site..
On Feb 17, 2:29 am, "Jonah Falcon" <jonahny...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I'm just wondering, Tom. Does EA's semen taste good?
>
> "Tom" <jimver...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Morgan
> It really isn't important whether or not you like it or not, even for me
> as well. They are in this to make money. It cost money to make DLC, so
> why would anyone think it should be free. People can push back all they
> want, all that would happen would be no DLC. Should people get free maps
> for COD games at the expense of the developer (as an example)?
It didn't used to be uncommon for new free multiplayer maps to be
included in game patches. It'as what used to be called "continued
support" for a product.
Sean Black
Jacobs <dja...@rawbw.com> writes
>Tom <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> You know, I really don't have a problem with this really. I mean, they are
>> in this to make money and when someone sells a game used for much cheaper
>> than retail, or worse yet, gives it away free, they get the content free. IF
>> all there is to this is just a $10 fee to access the extra content, it is
>> still much cheaper than buying the game retail, even if it is at a reduced
>> price.
>
>Imagine having to pay Honda an extra $1000 when you buy that used Accord from
>a neighbor. That's essentially what EA is doing here.
>
>
having a special offer and giving you a free sat nav, you then sell the
Accord but keep the sat nav. The guy that buys the Accord 2nd hand can
then buy himself a sat nav, should he want one, but it's up to him to
decide whether he wants it or not. Why should the original car dealer be
force to also give the 2nd hand buyer a free sat nav, as it was only an
incentive to get people to buy new from him?
--
Sean Black
Morgan
> You're missing the point. The companies I listed lose money when a
> game is resold, so why should they feel the obligation to sell the
> content when they didn't make money from the license of the sale.
> That's why one doesn't have to pay a fee for access if they buy it
> retail. Even then, as I already stated, it is still cheaper to pay for
> the access than to buy a retail game anyway.
>
> AFAIK, this is only an issue for console games, since one doesn't have
> to use a product key to play the game, like on a PC.
It depends. The article reads as if the person who buys the second hand
game will not be able to access the full original content if this is the
case then frankly that's shocking. If they are simply going to charge
for access to DLC that has already been bought and linked to the serial
key then thee is no moral difference.
The company has sold one copy. If a customer wants to sell that one
copy on then there should be no issue at all. If the customer has
already paid for the right to access DLC (DLC available on release day
is morally suspect IMHO to start with) then those rights should be
passed on with the product. There is no other product on the market that
I can think of where a publisher/manufacturer can impose restrictions on
resale.
Morgan
>> Imagine having to pay Honda an extra $1000 when you buy that used
>> Accord from
>> a neighbor. That's essentially what EA is doing here.
>>
>>
> I'd say it was more like, if you buy a new Accord and the dealer is
> having a special offer and giving you a free sat nav, you then sell the
> Accord but keep the sat nav. The guy that buys the Accord 2nd hand can
> then buy himself a sat nav, should he want one, but it's up to him to
> decide whether he wants it or not. Why should the original car dealer be
> force to also give the 2nd hand buyer a free sat nav, as it was only an
> incentive to get people to buy new from him?
Assuming we're inferring correctly about the situation. i.e. the second
hand buyer having to forlk out for any previously brought or included
DLC) then that becomes a false analogy.
A truer one would be if the car came with a SatNav that had free to
download maps after a one-off payment. What's actually happening is the
first bloke has already made that one-off payment, then sells the SatNav
with the car, but the company are now asking for a second payment
because the satnav has changed hands.
Morgan
> Trevor Smithson <trevor_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Just the thing to push more people into piracy, which will ultimately
>> result in fewer good games for the rest of us.
>>
> That's exactly why the PC gaming market is imploding right now. What few
> big publishers are left, seem all too happy to put what few legitimate
> customers through ridiculous DRM requirements which has no effect on the
> pirates whatsoever. If anything it drives more people to piracy or
> illegal tactics to use hacks to "fix" a program they've already
> legitimately bought.
Agree 100%, Piracy protection does nothing but inconvenience the paying
customer. I bought X3 Terran Conflict last year on a Friday night. It
turned out that it needed an online authentication (even though I'd
bought the bugger off steam.) Turned out that the authentication server
was down. It was a bank holiday Monday so the server stayed down until
the Tuesday. The end result, I paid for a game and had to wait over
three days top play it. I now wouldn't feel bad about pirating any game
that uses TAGES protection.
Paul Murray
> It depends. The article reads as if the person who buys the second hand
> game will not be able to access the full original content if this is the
> case then frankly that's shocking. If they are simply going to charge
> for access to DLC that has already been bought and linked to the serial
> key then thee is no moral difference.
What is *actually* happening with the current example, ME2:
There is additional content available to buy and download on day 1.
Each retail copy of the game comes with a single-use code which gives free
access to this content.
So the original buyer gets the content for free, second hand buyers, or
those using game rental services, will have to buy it or do without.
The additional content is not required to play the game.
> The company has sold one copy. If a customer wants to sell that one
> copy on then there should be no issue at all. If the customer has
> already paid for the right to access DLC (DLC available on release day
> is morally suspect IMHO to start with) then those rights should be
> passed on with the product.
But it isn't, and never has been. There are many games with DLC available,
and exactly the same situation is true of all of them, the DLC does not
get transfered if you sell the game. This is nothing new.
> There is no other product on the market that
> I can think of where a publisher/manufacturer can impose restrictions on
> resale.
They are not imposing any restrictions on resale of the physical product
you have bought. You cannot resell DLC, and that is just as true for ME2 as
it has been for every other game with DLC.
I buy ME2. It comes with free DLC.
I sell ME2. The buyter does not get that free DLC.
I buy an MMORPG. It comes with X months free play,
I sell the MMORPG. The buyer does not get those X months free play.
How is that different?
I buy an iPod.
I buy tracks on iTunes to play on the iPod.
I sell the iPod. The buyer does not get access to those tracks.
Exactly the same would be true if the iPod came with a coupon for $X free
tracks from iTunes, the second hand buyer would not get the benefit of that
coupon.
Sean Black
<nos...@nospam.co.uk> writes
I cancelled my pre-order for Silent Hunter V as soon as I found out you
need a permanent internet connection to play it, not just to activate.
My connection can be a bit hit and miss at times, so if for any reason
it went down, I'd be unable to play the game.
I'm sure it'll be cracked at some stage, probably before it's even
officially released, so I'll wait.
--
Sean Black
Sean Black
<nos...@nospam.co.uk> writes
The way I look at it, the sat nav (a portable one, not a built in one)
is a nice to have but not essential, optional extra. Should I have had
the chance to pay an extra $1000 for it when I bought the new car, I
probably wouldn't have bothered with it, as it is the dealer is offering
it to me for free as an incentive to buy a new car from him, rather than
a 2nd hand car from someone else. It's a nice extra to have, but I can
still make full use of the car without it.
Now if the new car came with a built-in sat nav, but you had to pay
$1000 to activate the maps, but was done free if I bought the car new,
then I'd fully expect them to be activated once and for all, so the
second hand buyer should expect to have use of those maps for nothing as
they'd already been activated.
So, if the content is on the disc when it's first sold then it should be
available for free to whoever owns the disc. If the content is
downloadable for a fee, but given away for free if you buy the disc new
then I don't see the problem in charging for it if you buy the disc
second hand and the original user hasn't already claimed the free DLC.
--
Sean Black
PBDepot
Right. My only real concern is that EA may start holding back certain
content in a game and call it DLC just to ensure they don't lose out
on used game profits. Yes, maybe the original buyer will get that so
called DLC for free, so it's a moot point for them, but the DLC could
be so crucial to the overall usefulness of the game that the person
who buys it second hand couldn't really play the expected full game
without getting this basically mandatory DLC as well. If this ever
becomes the case then it would most definitely subtract $10 from the
seller's overall resale value since the second hand buyer would now
have to account for that cost in their purchase.
It would basically boil down to EA charging everyone $10 extra for
their games to make up for lost profits with used game sales. Is this
a smart financial decision on their part, or would they be shooting
themselves in the foot with customer loyalty and brand name? (i.e.
customers who resale games and the ones who buy used will have to
decide if EA games are worth $10 more than every other publisher's
games.)
I imagine EA has absolutely considered these scenarios and it'll be
interesting to see how they ultimately handle the situation. You can
bet just about every other video game publisher out there will be
watching what happens in hopes one day they could possibly do the
same.
I don't think we'll ever see such an evil cycle like this come to
fruition, but the possibility of it is disturbing to say the least.
BakaMatt
That's exactly the concern that sprung to my mind when I first saw
this.
DLC content began as a way to provide additions to a game, but I'm
seeing it push more and more towards an anti-piracy tool. At what
point will it shift subtly from bonus features to gotta haves?
I thought game companies had reached the sweet spot with the "bonus"
one-time DLC use codes. It provides a little extra content for those
who purchased the full game. Not locked out to owners of used games,
but if they wanted it, they needed to fork out a few dollars.
That was a good stopping point. Reward the early adopters, and allow
some kickback from resales.
Paying for the ability to pay for additional content is ludicrous, and
I can't think of anyone in their right mind who would consider it. EA
has to realize this, and the only sane way for them to pull it off is
to slip something extremely desirable or crucial into the DLC window.
It'd be a dick move, but it wouldn't be the first time they've done
something so absurd. They just better be ready to accept the fact that
they might be shooting themself in the foot. Record rates of piracy
against the Spore activation model, hmm?
The King of Gaming
> Tom <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
> > You know, I really don't have a problem with this really. I mean, they are
> > in this to make money and when someone sells a game used for much cheaper
> > than retail, or worse yet, gives it away free, they get the content free. IF
> > all there is to this is just a $10 fee to access the extra content, it is
> > still much cheaper than buying the game retail, even if it is at a reduced
> > price.
>
> Imagine having to pay Honda an extra $1000 when you buy that used Accord from
> a neighbor. That's essentially what EA is doing here.
Except that's a stupid example, since the used Honda bears no
resemblance to a new Honda on the lot and doesn't affect Honda's
ability to sell new cars. A used game plays just as well as a new
game.
>
> If I buy a game that comes on physical media, then I am allowed to
> transfer ownership of the license to that information contained within as
> I see fit. If that means selling the game for $5, or even lending it to a
> friend for free - so long as I'm not violating copyright law, what I do
> with MY copy of the item is MY business.
That's an example of trying to apply an outdated notion (copyrights)
to the 21st century, and why we have had all of these issues with DRM,
the RIAA, etc. It just doesn't apply any more.
The bottom line is that video games have become a single use item, and
EA wants everyone who uses to pay. They don't want you to beat a
game, then sell/give it to your friend, have them beat it, and so
on... all the while they have only gotten the initial sale. Now
whether that's right or wrong is another issue entirely... but this is
the heart of the issue. People say, well make the games good enough
to where people want to hold on to them, but that's pretty
unrealistic. The current design of games suits most gamers quite well
and even games with great replay value eventually make it to the
chopping block because there are so many games available and most
people just want to move on to the next game.
Also, as usual the blame is being heaped on the wrong party. People
love to whine about EA or MS but have no problem bending over and
grabbing their ankles for Gamestop. Yes, blame the pawn shop of
gaming who has no problem giving you a few measly dollars for a new
release trade-in and then turning around and selling it for a whopping
$5 off of retail. Then repeating this process over and over with the
same games. So the companies who create and develop the games, who
spend huge money marketing the game get one initial sale, while a pawn
shop whose board of directors couldn't make an Atari 2600 game rake in
the dough selling someone else's creative work over and over. Please
explain to me how this is good for the industry...
Jonah Falcon
"BakaMatt" <mler...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:553d73e6-8f6d-4e8c...@z1g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
RKRM
"The King of Gaming" <king.of...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4d3b1de1-c738-4691...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Great post. And excellent points. I know I want great games and so since I
rarely buy a used game and always hang onto my games this whole thing is
less of an issue for me. The thing is though that EA needs to be careful
they don't do massive damage to Gamestop/EBGames/GameCrazy/Etc. And speaking
of Game Crazy which is owned by Hollywood Video - I wonder what percentage
of VG sales go to Blockbuster, Hollywood, Game Fly etc. I have no doubt they
sell more to Wal-Mart and Toys R' Us but they are still walking a fine line
here. As far as the 5$ dollars off retail goes it is my opinion that is done
to encourage new game sales. I know I wouldn't buy used to save 5 bux. It's
the older deeply discounted titles that are more attractive. Then again by
then the new games are cheaper too. Maybe I am not typical but when I want a
game I get it at or near release and keep it for at least the remainder of
the current generation. To me games are like books they can be enjoyed more
than once especially if a decent amount of time has gone by since originally
playing it. The bottom line is VG's are a business and without a robust
industry gamers will be screwed.
The King of Gaming
>
> Great post. And excellent points. I know I want great games and so since I
> rarely buy a used game and always hang onto my games this whole thing is
> less of an issue for me. The thing is though that EA needs to be careful
> they don't do massive damage to Gamestop/EBGames/GameCrazy/Etc. And speaking
> of Game Crazy which is owned by Hollywood Video - I wonder what percentage
> of VG sales go to Blockbuster, Hollywood, Game Fly etc. I have no doubt they
> sell more to Wal-Mart and Toys R' Us but they are still walking a fine line
> here. As far as the 5$ dollars off retail goes it is my opinion that is done
> to encourage new game sales. I know I wouldn't buy used to save 5 bux.
See, I've always seen it the opposite. That Gamestop is basically
betting that the average Joe six-pack, who is going to trade the game
in anyway in a few weeks, doesn't care about the condition and
basically sees it as another extra value meal to take the $5.
> It's
> the older deeply discounted titles that are more attractive. Then again by
> then the new games are cheaper too. Maybe I am not typical but when I want a
> game I get it at or near release and keep it for at least the remainder of
> the current generation. To me games are like books they can be enjoyed more
> than once especially if a decent amount of time has gone by since originally
> playing it. The bottom line is VG's are a business and without a robust
> industry gamers will be screwed.- Hide quoted text -
>
Like you, I keep most of my games, selling the odd mistake or seasonal
sports title. I honestly don't think the industry would have too big
of a problem with all this if it were just private sales going on. I
think it's the parasitic nature of Gamestop (and piracy, to a lesser
extent) that is bringing on these measures. I've seen too many
developer interviews that state as much.
AGENT47
relevant to this thread
They talk about the model of paying to play , such as paying for
prestige in MW2 .
http://www.gametrailers.com/episode/bonusround/402?ch=2&sd=1_hd
Trevor Smithson
wrote:
>On Feb 16, 9:15�pm, Jordan <lu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 16, 4:29�pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Wait a second, I'm a bit confused here.
>>
>> > EA is somehow locking away part of the original game unless the 2nd hand
>> > owner forks over $10 to EA?
>>
>> You know how most games these days have a "Downloadable Content" menu?
>>
>> If you buy a used copy of Mass Effect 2 then you have to pay to access
>> the menu called "Downloadable Content". This is not a fee for the
>> content itself, it's a fee just to enter the menu. A cover charge if
>> you will. Then you still have to pay for the content you find inside.
>>
>> - Jordan
>
>And I really don't see the issue with this at all. IF one buys the
>game used, then EA, MS, Sony, etc don't make money on the licenses.
Neither does Ford or Toyota when a used car is sold privately. Neither
does an author when a book is sold. Etc.
Trevor Smithson
>
>
>"Trevor Smithson" <trevor_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:e35mn5lcg22gea61n...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:34:36 -0500, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>news:KJidnbX-rfsytOfW...@earthlink.com...
>>>> http://www.tomsguide.com/us/ea-project-ten-dollars-dlc,news-5797.html
>>>
>>
>>
>> Just the thing to push more people into piracy, which will ultimately
>> result in fewer good games for the rest of us.
>>
>> People should push back, hold out, and by God never buy this sort of
>> bullshit DLC.
>
>It really isn't important whether or not you like it or not, even for me as
>well. They are in this to make money. It cost money to make DLC, so why
>would anyone think it should be free. People can push back all they want,
>all that would happen would be no DLC. Should people get free maps for COD
>games at the expense of the developer (as an example)?
Back when the PC was dominant free maps were a way to keep people
interested and thus buying the game. Nowadays the idea is to chop out
some section of the game and convert it to DLC. And now EA is trying
to charge just to access DLC.
I say no.
Trevor Smithson
wrote:
>On Feb 17, 12:19�am, Jordan <lu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 16, 8:46�pm, Tom <jimver...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > And I really don't see the issue with this at all. IF one buys the
>> > game used, then EA, MS, Sony, etc don't make money on the licenses.
>> > But then you think their services should be there for those to use
>> > them without ever having to have paid for the license (buying retail).
>> > In the end, no one is forced to pay for the service, but they also
>> > choose not to get any of the game extras when they come out.
>>
>> Then charge for the content. Charging for the menu to access the
>> content is petty.
>>
>> - Jordan
>
>You're missing the point. The companies I listed lose money when a
>game is resold, so why should they feel the obligation to sell the
>content when they didn't make money from the license of the sale.
No they do not lose money. They don't make money either, but there is
no loss on their part. Once I own the game, the developer/publisher
is no longer part of the equation.
It's all part of the trend to change this and make media into a
neverending rental, with no true ownership, no resales.
Trevor Smithson
wrote:
>Tom <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> How is it automatically decreased and cheapen the resell value? You sell the
>> game for what it is deemed worth at the time. If you sell it privately, you
>> sell it for what it is worth for you as well. It is up to the buyer to buy
>> it or not, even under the understanding of what needs to be done for DLC,
>> etc. from the game maker. But, if that person wanted to spend even $20 for
>> the game retail (typically when it get less than Platinum sales price) when
>> it is probably going to be at its cheapest, they still are saving money. If
>> that person said no, then they will spend more for retail.
>
>The problem is, this doesn't apply to extra DLC. That's under a separate
>license and when you buy it, you understand that it is not transferable to
>another person.
>
Which is one reason why I have never bought single-player DLC. Ever.
And why I enourage others to do the same.
Trevor Smithson
wrote:
This reminds me of a now-old Terminator 2 DVD of mine. It has a
special HD copy in wmv format, but in order to access it you have to
authenticate to some server. Problem is those servers have been down
many many times, and last time I checked had gone away seemingly
permanently. This sort of problem is going to become ever-worse as
time goes on and companies go out of business, or simply decide to
turn off their various authentication schemes.
Tom
"AGENT47" <ks...@4email.net> wrote in message
news:93c9d787-72b4-4938...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
Hmm, interesting perspectives there. Really though, it all comes down to
making the decision, if you want it, pay for it (if the model somehow
becomes the fact), or you don't. If it doesn't work because people don't
buy into it, they start to lose money, they reverse it.
Tom
"Trevor Smithson" <trevor_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fgnon5ppt7nmrj7lf...@4ax.com...
Only charging for those WHO did not purchase the game retail. You know
that's how they make most of their money is from the initial sales of the
game at retail, licensing. Selling it used, they're getting nothing else
from it, as they got no licensing percentage from the sale. It is just a way
for them to recoup some of that money. Do I like it, no, but in the end, it
is up to the person who bought the game used, to make the decision. If this
were forced, then I would agree with you.
Tom
"Trevor Smithson" <trevor_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gmnon555v1ok2qva2...@4ax.com...
I disagree, they are losing money when games change hand through used sales
of the games as that was a potential retail sale there. The worst thing that
can happen is that, when you buy a game, the game has product key that must
activate it online and then it is permanently tied to that person's
gamertag, then that would be an issue and I hope that never comes to pass,
but that could be their solution. But, MS and game makers could easily do
that. Look at Windows and Office products, they do that, so people cannot
sell the systems used or make copies of them. How much money would MS lose,
if I bought Windows and just I lend it out to everyone to install on their
PCs to use without ever having to worry about activation or using the same
product key over and over again?
>
> It's all part of the trend to change this and make media into a
> neverending rental, with no true ownership, no resales.
Well, as of now we own the games, but if they went that route, I would stop
gaming because it wouldn't worth the time. But, I see no problem with them
trying to make back a little money from used game sales, since they are not
getting their licensing share as they do from actual retail sales.
Tom
"Trevor Smithson" <trevor_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mdnon5pv9j9785b80...@4ax.com...
That's a very poor analogy as most people who sell their cars used are going
to buy another car for themselves. I am not going to sell my games used to
just go out and buy the same game again retail.
Tom
"Trevor Smithson" <trevor_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u8oon5l83a8j3t428...@4ax.com...
Why should DLC be able to be transferred? His initial point was that the DLC
is tied to the hardware, which is totally false, it is tied to the gamertag.
DLC from XBL has always been tied to the person who buys it. If I wanted to
lend my gamertag to a friend, then they could play my DLC and the games, but
then I could not go online at home or access my goodies. Not only that, they
don't get their own gamer scores and achievements. Does that also bother you
too, that you cannot transfer your scores and to your friends?
Doug Jacobs
>> Which is one reason why I have never bought single-player DLC. Ever.
>> And why I enourage others to do the same.
>
> Why should DLC be able to be transferred? His initial point was that the DLC
> is tied to the hardware, which is totally false, it is tied to the gamertag.
> DLC from XBL has always been tied to the person who buys it. If I wanted to
> lend my gamertag to a friend, then they could play my DLC and the games, but
> then I could not go online at home or access my goodies. Not only that, they
> don't get their own gamer scores and achievements. Does that also bother you
> too, that you cannot transfer your scores and to your friends?
Actually, it's tied to both your gamertag and the hardware.
If I download something on my console, all users on my console have access
to that content - regardless of whether the account is gold, silver, or
offline.
At the same time, if I go to a friend's house, "recover my account" on his
console, and redownload stuff, only my account on that console can use it
unless I transfer the licenese to that console as well (which I think you
can only do a certain number of times.) This is mainly to handle the
situation when your console dies, and you get a new one from Microsoft, or
buy a new console.
And at any rate, EA's Project $10 is not about after-market DLC. It's
about EA intentionally locking (part of) the game unless a code is
entered. The game comes with 1 free code, but after that, it's
$10/person. So, you buy the game and lend it to a friend. He now has to
pay $10. I don't know enough about the program to know if the code is
per-user, or per-console. Considering many households have multiple
players, a per-user fee like this will definitely result in EA losing
sales left and right.
--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.
Doug Jacobs
> Back when the PC was dominant free maps were a way to keep people
> interested and thus buying the game. Nowadays the idea is to chop out
> some section of the game and convert it to DLC. And now EA is trying
> to charge just to access DLC.
>
> I say no.
It's not even DLC - it's content that's already included on the disc, but
is locked unless you pay EA $10 for the code to unlock it. That means that
it is impossible to sell a used copy because it's not quite the same
version you originally played.
Doug Jacobs
> Only charging for those WHO did not purchase the game retail. You know
> that's how they make most of their money is from the initial sales of the
> game at retail, licensing. Selling it used, they're getting nothing else
> from it, as they got no licensing percentage from the sale. It is just a way
> for them to recoup some of that money. Do I like it, no, but in the end, it
> is up to the person who bought the game used, to make the decision. If this
> were forced, then I would agree with you.
>
Legally speaking, EA deserves no money for a license transfer. This isn't
the same as creating a new instance here. One copy was bought, and one
copy remains even when transferred to someone else. When you buy a used
car, you don't then have to go pay the manufacturer (Ford, Toyota, etc.)
do you? When you borrow a book from the library, you don't write a check
to the publisher, do you? But that's exactly what EA is doing here.
After-market content - that is, stuff not included in the initial release
of the game - is a separate issue here. What EA is literally saying is
that everyone must pay again for the same copy of the game - which I
suspect may violate existing copyright law.
Doug Jacobs
> I cancelled my pre-order for Silent Hunter V as soon as I found out you
> need a permanent internet connection to play it, not just to activate.
> My connection can be a bit hit and miss at times, so if for any reason
> it went down, I'd be unable to play the game.
I'm hearing more and more games requiring this. While some of them at
least try to give you some value-add for this, not everyone has a
permanent connection. In one case, I read a game review in which the
reviewer said his connection went down, causing him to lose an entire
level's worth of progress. He just shrugged it off, however, and gave the
game a decent rating. I don't know about you, but if I lost hours of
progress due to an internet hiccup - or worse - a server crash, I don't
think I'd continue playing that game for much longer. And I certainly
wouldn't purchase other games that relied on such a model. No, MMOs are
different. The game exists only on the server, so obviously you need
internet access to play the game. But in this case, the game exists
entirely on your computer - even the save file. The internet connection
is only needed, I guess, to make sure you haven't somehow pirated the game
in the past 5 seconds or whatever. This also means, when the servers are
shut down, the game becomes unplayable. Imagine if books came with the
same provision. Once the publisher decided to stop "supporting" your
copy, the pages turn blank.
> I'm sure it'll be cracked at some stage, probably before it's even
> officially released, so I'll wait.
It's probably already been cracked. Games tend to show up anywhere from 2
to 4 weeks before they're offcially released.
Doug Jacobs
> You know how most games these days have a "Downloadable Content" menu?
>
> If you buy a used copy of Mass Effect 2 then you have to pay to access
> the menu called "Downloadable Content". This is not a fee for the
> content itself, it's a fee just to enter the menu. A cover charge if
> you will. Then you still have to pay for the content you find inside.
My understanding was this wasn't for DLC (after-market content) but for
the actual game itself. Like selling a game with level 5 locked unless
you enter a special code. Oh, if you don't have a code, you can buy one
for $10.
If, on the other hand, the $10 is just to ALLOW second hand buyers the
PRIVELEGE of buying DLC, then...well, I just don't get it.
So...if I buy Dragon Age used (which is one of the titles with this $10
"feature") and I want to buy one of the additional suits of armor, I have
to first pay EA $10 to just be able to browse the DLC store?!? That makes
no sense whatsoever.
And again, being able to buy DLC is a feature of the normal game. Does EA
really have the right to demand people pay money for a feature that is in
the game already simply because they legitimately obtained the game second
hand?
Doug Jacobs
> And I really don't see the issue with this at all. IF one buys the
> game used, then EA, MS, Sony, etc don't make money on the licenses.
> them without ever having to have paid for the license (buying retail).
> In the end, no one is forced to pay for the service, but they also
> choose not to get any of the game extras when they come out.
Again, the companies are paid on a per-license deal. You buy a retail
version, that's 1 license. If you then lend that game to a friend, you
haven't increased the number of licenses that have been sold, so why
should the publisher get paid a 2nd time?
This is the way it works with all other forms of physical media - books,
CDs, DVDs, etc. Heck, why do you think we even have lending libraries in
the first place?
DLC is already non-transferable, so even if you lend a game to a friend,
you can't lend him the DLC you purchased unless you lend him your entire
console. So if your friend wants to use that DLC, he already has to
purchase his own copy.
By putting this $10 entrance fee on top of the cost of DLC, EA is just going
to LOSE MONEY because I'm pretty sure that folks who buy used games don't
normally buy DLC to begin with - and by raising the price immediately by $10,
you certainly aren't going to concinvce them to start.
PBDepot
I kinda failed to bring those two points up in your last paragraph,
but those reflect my sentiments exactly. It's no surprise that EA is
evil, and the only real mystery is how they seemed to have not noticed
the way people have traditionally revolted against such practices as
these. If there's anyway they don't think their company could be
ruined in an insant by jaded gamers, well then thay haven't been
paying attention to the industry very well the last 20-30 years.
Tom
"Doug Jacobs" <dja...@rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:d-idnSp0jNdUHOHW...@posted.rawbandwidth...
I am on my fifth console and I can still get all of the DLCs I bought with
my first. It is tied to the gamertag. When you redownload, you also have to
update your gamertag to your new hardware and there are no limits. I don't
know how else to state this, but it works every time.
>
> And at any rate, EA's Project $10 is not about after-market DLC. It's
> about EA intentionally locking (part of) the game unless a code is
> entered. The game comes with 1 free code, but after that, it's
> $10/person. So, you buy the game and lend it to a friend. He now has to
> pay $10. I don't know enough about the program to know if the code is
> per-user, or per-console. Considering many households have multiple
> players, a per-user fee like this will definitely result in EA losing
> sales left and right.
Again, while I may not agree with this, EA and any dev/publisher are losing
money from retail sales on used games being transferred to another party. I
don't think it is unreasonable for them to make this charge. If they were
doing this for retail games sold right off, then that would be bullcrap, but
this isn't the case. Just keep in mind that this is more than likely a means
to recoup lost licensing profits from the resale of a game they cannot make
money on as if sold fresh from a retail outlet.
In any case, it is a choice whether one wants to pay the money or not, and
it isn't forced upon them. If they locked the game out, that would be an
issue.
Tom
"Doug Jacobs" <dja...@rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:d-idnSR0jNeIGeHW...@posted.rawbandwidth...
> Tom <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> Only charging for those WHO did not purchase the game retail. You know
>> that's how they make most of their money is from the initial sales of the
>> game at retail, licensing. Selling it used, they're getting nothing else
>> from it, as they got no licensing percentage from the sale. It is just a
>> way
>> for them to recoup some of that money. Do I like it, no, but in the end,
>> it
>> is up to the person who bought the game used, to make the decision. If
>> this
>> were forced, then I would agree with you.
>>
>
> Legally speaking, EA deserves no money for a license transfer. This isn't
> the same as creating a new instance here. One copy was bought, and one
> copy remains even when transferred to someone else. When you buy a used
> car, you don't then have to go pay the manufacturer (Ford, Toyota, etc.)
> do you? When you borrow a book from the library, you don't write a check
> to the publisher, do you? But that's exactly what EA is doing here.
.
Poor analogy with the car as I pointed out to Trevor. Most people who sell
their cars off are going to get another one. I also didn't say they are
getting money for a transfer of the license, or they would just do that. I
assume this may be a reason for the charge to help offset the loss of not
getting a retail sale on the books as a used copy is sold.
>
> After-market content - that is, stuff not included in the initial release
> of the game - is a separate issue here. What EA is literally saying is
> that everyone must pay again for the same copy of the game - which I
> suspect may violate existing copyright law.
Windows and many software brands do this, or they would make money. Do you
think it is OK for a software maker no to be able to have individual sales
for their products? I mean, can you imagine one copy of Windows being able
to be used as many times as one wanted? MS would lose out the ass on that
deal as I could just lend my copy of windows for anyone and their relatives
to install on as many machines as they want. Again, EA and whoever, are not
making anyone pay for the access, it is a choice. Just imagine if these
gaming companies decide on activation, then we all would have no choice.
Doug Jacobs
> You're missing the point. The companies I listed lose money when a
> game is resold,
How are they losing money? 1 license was purchased. 1 license remains in
use. This isn't like piracy where someone makes a copy - thereby
increasing the number of licenses that are in use even though they were
not paid for.
> so why should they feel the obligation to sell the
> content when they didn't make money from the license of the sale.
> That's why one doesn't have to pay a fee for access if they buy it
> retail. Even then, as I already stated, it is still cheaper to pay for
> the access than to buy a retail game anyway.
People already have to purchase their own copy of DLC. Even if I lend a
game to a friend, I cannot lend him my DLC. He has to buy his own.
This program of EA's means that even before my friend can buy DLC he has
to pay $10 just access that menu. That's just stupid and, in my opinion,
will dissaude people from buying DLC at all - resulting in LESS money for
EA.
> AFAIK, this is only an issue for console games, since one doesn't have
> to use a product key to play the game, like on a PC.
Yeah, well, PC games have their own morass of problems, which has
resulted in the market imploding over the past 10-15 years.
PBDepot
They absolutely have the right to control content coming directly from
them that has yet to be purchased (i.e. DLC content), even to go so
far as charging for the right to purchase it. But that doesn't mean it
still isn't a stupid idea and won't ruin their company in the process.
Funny how every few years we always get amazed by the ridiculous
policies EA employs. Honestly if it wasn't for Madden, Battlefield,
and their numerous developer acquisitions over the years, the company
would've been long dead and gone by now.
Tom
"Doug Jacobs" <dja...@rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:iIydnS5BL9I-EeHW...@posted.rawbandwidth...
> Tom <jimv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> You're missing the point. The companies I listed lose money when a
>> game is resold,
>
> How are they losing money? 1 license was purchased. 1 license remains in
> use. This isn't like piracy where someone makes a copy - thereby
> increasing the number of licenses that are in use even though they were
> not paid for.
They lose money by the person having bought a used game and not charging the
extra I explained (I think) the charges are for. They should be able to
make some money off the sale. Even then,as I hit on ad nauseam, it is still
cheaper for the person to pay for the acdess than to buy the game retail,
seriously.
>
>> so why should they feel the obligation to sell the
>> content when they didn't make money from the license of the sale.
>> That's why one doesn't have to pay a fee for access if they buy it
>> retail. Even then, as I already stated, it is still cheaper to pay for
>> the access than to buy a retail game anyway.
>
> People already have to purchase their own copy of DLC. Even if I lend a
> game to a friend, I cannot lend him my DLC. He has to buy his own.
Did I say you could lend them the DLC (though trevor seems to think that we
should be able to)? I only said that it is tied to the gamertag, nothing
more.
>
> This program of EA's means that even before my friend can buy DLC he has
> to pay $10 just access that menu. That's just stupid and, in my opinion,
> will dissaude people from buying DLC at all - resulting in LESS money for
> EA.
Not stupid, there are making money this way since they didn't on the SECOND
sale of a copy of a game they didn't make money on as they would from a
retail sale. We already paid for this access with the first purchase, I see
no issue with this, really.
>
>> AFAIK, this is only an issue for console games, since one doesn't have
>> to use a product key to play the game, like on a PC.
>
> Yeah, well, PC games have their own morass of problems, which has
> resulted in the market imploding over the past 10-15 years.
Yes, besides being able to pirate the games more easily, it is still far
cheaper to dev games on a PC than it is for a console. Why do you think game
are so expesive on Consoles, along with adding in the licensing fees MS
charges for use on the 360.
I probably will be done with PC gaming after this newest rig I built as by
the next gen, it will definitely be good enough graphically to enjoy the
games I lvoe most, RPGs. Even by then, PC gaming will be a near death
experience after this gen.
Tom
"Doug Jacobs" <dja...@rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:n-GdnVtY8K6cF-HW...@posted.rawbandwidth...
> Tom <jimv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> And I really don't see the issue with this at all. IF one buys the
>> game used, then EA, MS, Sony, etc don't make money on the licenses.
>> But then you think their services should be there for those to use
>> them without ever having to have paid for the license (buying retail).
>> In the end, no one is forced to pay for the service, but they also
>> choose not to get any of the game extras when they come out.
>
> Again, the companies are paid on a per-license deal. You buy a retail
> version, that's 1 license. If you then lend that game to a friend, you
> haven't increased the number of licenses that have been sold, so why
> should the publisher get paid a 2nd time?
Already explained Doug, it doesn't work that way, or else we could just use
one game, copy it to everyone's HDD and play away with one sale only. You
need to get over that part big time. I am not saying it is right, only that
they are trying to make money they are not making from a retail sale. It
ALSO is not forced on the resale purchaser, they can do without if they are
pissed about it.
>
> This is the way it works with all other forms of physical media - books,
> CDs, DVDs, etc. Heck, why do you think we even have lending libraries in
> the first place?
>
> DLC is already non-transferable, so even if you lend a game to a friend,
> you can't lend him the DLC you purchased unless you lend him your entire
> console. So if your friend wants to use that DLC, he already has to
> purchase his own copy.
DLC has nothing to do with it, it has to do with recovering the loss of a
retail sale, don't you get it?
>
> By putting this $10 entrance fee on top of the cost of DLC, EA is just
> going
> to LOSE MONEY because I'm pretty sure that folks who buy used games don't
> normally buy DLC to begin with - and by raising the price immediately by
> $10,
> you certainly aren't going to concinvce them to start.
That would be cool too, then EA etals can reverse their decision. But
seriously, how many times have these companies made these decisions and
everyone fell inline with them. In the end, the gamer bends to their desires
to play the games.
Paul Murray
> "Trevor Smithson" <trevor_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:mdnon5pv9j9785b80...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:46:55 -0800 (PST), Tom <jimv...@hotmail.com>
>>>> On Feb 16, 4:29 pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote:
>>>> > Wait a second, I'm a bit confused here.
>>>> > EA is somehow locking away part of the original game unless the 2nd
>>>> > hand
>>>> > owner forks over $10 to EA?
>>>> You know how most games these days have a "Downloadable Content" menu?
>>>> If you buy a used copy of Mass Effect 2 then you have to pay to access
>>>> the menu called "Downloadable Content". This is not a fee for the
>>>> content itself, it's a fee just to enter the menu. A cover charge if
>>>> you will. Then you still have to pay for the content you find inside.
>>>game used, then EA, MS, Sony, etc don't make money on the licenses.
>> Neither does Ford or Toyota when a used car is sold privately. Neither
>> does an author when a book is sold. Etc.
> That's a very poor analogy as most people who sell their cars used are going
> to buy another car for themselves.
But not necessarily a car from the same manufacturer.
> I am not going to sell my games used to
> just go out and buy the same game again retail.
But you may be well be trading it in to buy another game, just as in the car
example.
I notice you didn't address the book issue. Or CDs, DVDs, etc...
Paul Murray
> After-market content - that is, stuff not included in the initial release
> of the game - is a separate issue here. What EA is literally saying is
> that everyone must pay again for the same copy of the game - which I
> suspect may violate existing copyright law.
No they aren't, and no it doesn't.
You get the base game.
You have to pay for the DLC, which the original buyer got for free.
What exactly in 'copyright law' does this violate?
Paul Murray
What Doug is saying that the DLC will work if either the hardware matches, or
the gamertag matches. So anyone can play it on the specific 360, and you can
play it on any 360.
Paul Murray
> news:iIydnS5BL9I-EeHW...@posted.rawbandwidth...
>> Tom <jimv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> You're missing the point. The companies I listed lose money when a
>>> game is resold,
>> How are they losing money? 1 license was purchased. 1 license remains in
>> use. This isn't like piracy where someone makes a copy - thereby
>> increasing the number of licenses that are in use even though they were
>> not paid for.
> They lose money by the person having bought a used game and not charging the
> extra I explained (I think) the charges are for. They should be able to
> make some money off the sale.
Why?
Why should gaming be treated differently to any other intellectual property?
Books, CDs, DVDs and so on can all be resold, what is different about games
that gives the company some right to get paid when something is resold?
Zomoniac
Allow me. Used games make up 45% of the market. Other than cars and
houses, there is no other market where second-hand sales come close to
the levels of gaming.
It also doesn't cost $100m to make a book.
They also have a shorter lifespan. Let's say your young son has just
discovered this Harry Potter thing and wants to start from the
beginning. He goes to Amazon and orders a new copy of the first book and
the first film. He wants the first game as well. Except he can't buy it
new, as it doesn't exist. Games only have print runs for a few years at
the most.
Films also have more sources of income. They get money from the box
office, then the DVD release, then the PPV, then selling the rights to
networks. Games don't get that luxury.
CDs similarly. Musicians also get income from radio royalties and live
performance. Games don't have that.
As for cars, most people can't afford a new car. Used cars are often
60-70% cheaper to buy 3 years old than from the factory, so people have
no choice. Car companies know this, so they will factor in the loss of
sales due to the used market in their price for new cars.
The used game market is nothing like this, and perplexes me no end. A
used game is never more than 5-10% cheaper than a new game. We're not
talking tens of thousands like cars, we're talking a few dollars. If you
can afford a used game, 99% of the time you can afford the same game
new. In fact, 99% of the time if you know which websites to go to you
can always find a game new for less than the cheapest second hand price
anyway. It's a market with almost no appeal, being rammed into people's
minds by overpriced high street stores. I can't see why anyone would
ever buy a used game unless it was no longer in print.
--
Zo
Big Blu-82
>>
> The used game market is nothing like this, and perplexes me no end. A
> used game is never more than 5-10% cheaper than a new game. We're not
> talking tens of thousands like cars, we're talking a few dollars. If you
> can afford a used game, 99% of the time you can afford the same game
> new.
I disagree on this point. Games in general, lose their value faster
than other intellectual property. This is because there is an
intrinsic value attached to playing the game shortly after its
release.
Even new games may lose up to 20-25% of their value 3 months after
their release date. However, this is a loss of sales revenue incurred
by the retailer not the publisher. This is part of the reason game
retailers try to profit from the used games market.
The other important characteristic of the games market is that
consumers have traditionally been very price sensitive. However, post-
GFC data has shown that this may not apply to a segment of the
hardcore gaming market.
Therefore, if you add these two characteristic together, you can begin
to identify which segment of the gaming industry EA is trying to
target with their $10 charge.
Paul Murray
> The used game market is nothing like this, and perplexes me no end. A
> used game is never more than 5-10% cheaper than a new game. We're not
> talking tens of thousands like cars, we're talking a few dollars. If you
> can afford a used game, 99% of the time you can afford the same game
> new. In fact, 99% of the time if you know which websites to go to you
> can always find a game new for less than the cheapest second hand price
> anyway. It's a market with almost no appeal, being rammed into people's
> minds by overpriced high street stores. I can't see why anyone would
> ever buy a used game unless it was no longer in print.
On the other hand (speaking of console games), the manuals are completely
useless anyway, so providing the disc isn't scratched, which you can
check relatvely easily, the used game is pretty much identical to the
new one. Apart, of course, from things like the DLC schemes being
discussed.
Zomoniac
Maybe culture is different in the US. Here in the UK, a game comes out
on the high street for �45, and online for �38. Within a day, the high
street have used copies for �43. Fast forward to two weeks after release
and it'll be �40 new and �38 used in stores, �25 new online. A week
later, the same price in store and �18 online.
My point is that it's almost unheard of for a used high street game
price here to be cheaper than the same game new and sealed online, yet
millions of idiots are still paying more for an inferior product.
Doesn't sound price-sensitive to me.
--
Zo
Tom
"Paul Murray" <pa...@murray.net> wrote in message
news:aM7fn.457802$gF5.1...@en-nntp-01.am2.easynews.com...
Who said anything about "rights". I only explained that this (may be) a
method where EA, etals make money on the fees they don't make on the resale
of used games, by charging these fees. A person buys the game retail, the
dev/publishers make money, and in this newest scheme, the new copy avoids
these charges. Reselling it incurs it, because (as I again think) that they
are not making money on the licensing fees they would get from the retail
sale, but these folks want the benefits of being able to get the extra
content.
Paul Murray
You said that they 'should' be able to be make only off second hand sales.
I read that to say that you thought there was some moral right for them to
get paid.
Tom
"Paul Murray" <pa...@murray.net> wrote in message
news:eAafn.457804$gF5.1...@en-nntp-01.am2.easynews.com...
Your words, not mine, as I was only presenting it from a business
perspective.
The King of Gaming
> On 2010-02-18, Tom <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:aM7fn.457802$gF5.1...@en-nntp-01.am2.easynews.com...
> >> On 2010-02-18, Tom <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
> >>>news:iIydnS5BL9I-EeHW...@posted.rawbandwidth...
> >>>> Tom <jimver...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> You're missing the point. The companies I listed lose money when a
> >>>>> game is resold,
> >>>> How are they losing money? 1 license was purchased. 1 license remains
> >>>> in
> >>>> use. This isn't like piracy where someone makes a copy - thereby
> >>>> increasing the number of licenses that are in use even though they were
> >>>> not paid for.
> >>> They lose money by the person having bought a used game and not charging
> >>> the
> >>> extra I explained (I think) the charges are for. They should be able to
> >>> make some money off the sale.
> >> Why?
> >> Why should gaming be treated differently to any other intellectual
> >> property?
> >> Books, CDs, DVDs and so on can all be resold, what is different about
> >> games
> >> that gives the company some right to get paid when something is resold?
> > Who said anything about "rights". I only explained that this (may be) a
>
> You said that they 'should' be able to be make only off second hand sales.
> I read that to say that you thought there was some moral right for them to
>
> - Show quoted text -
You obviously haven't been paying much attention because all three of
those things you mentioned (books, cds, dvds) are going through the
exact same process in trying to eliminate the second-hand market and
cut out the middle man. Again, whether you like it or not, going
forward media like this is going to be considered "single use" items
and the publishers want to be paid by everyone who uses it.
Paul Murray
Ok, if it was meant as they 'would like to' be able ... I don't disagree.
Trevor Smithson
>
>
>"Trevor Smithson" <trevor_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:mdnon5pv9j9785b80...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:46:55 -0800 (PST), Tom <jimv...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 16, 9:15 pm, Jordan <lu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 16, 4:29 pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Wait a second, I'm a bit confused here.
>>>>
>>>> > EA is somehow locking away part of the original game unless the 2nd
>>>> > hand
>>>> > owner forks over $10 to EA?
>>>>
>>>> You know how most games these days have a "Downloadable Content" menu?
>>>>
>>>> If you buy a used copy of Mass Effect 2 then you have to pay to access
>>>> the menu called "Downloadable Content". This is not a fee for the
>>>> content itself, it's a fee just to enter the menu. A cover charge if
>>>> you will. Then you still have to pay for the content you find inside.
>>>>
>>>> - Jordan
>>>
>>>And I really don't see the issue with this at all. IF one buys the
>>>game used, then EA, MS, Sony, etc don't make money on the licenses.
>>
>> Neither does Ford or Toyota when a used car is sold privately. Neither
>> does an author when a book is sold. Etc.
>
>That's a very poor analogy as most people who sell their cars used are going
>to buy another car for themselves. I am not going to sell my games used to
>just go out and buy the same game again retail.
Huh? Same game? I can sell a car, and buy a different car from a
different manufacturer. Or buy something else entirely. Or burn the
money. Whatever.
Same with a game. Sell the old one, buy a different one from a
different manufacturer. Or do whatever with the money.
It's the same thing, it's my property, and the manufactuer should have
no interest in the matter once I've bought something.
The King of Gaming
wrote:> >"Trevor Smithson" <trevor_smith...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:mdnon5pv9j9785b80...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:46:55 -0800 (PST), Tom <jimver...@hotmail.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Utterly stupid comparison and your last statement just goes to show
that people can't wrap their brain around how things work in the 21st
century. A used car is a used car and no one has any delusions about
it being new. It doesn't affect new car sales one bit, if you want a
new car then you have to go buy one. A used game is undistinguishable
from a new game, and people can buy and resell them over and over
again without affecting the play experience... also without giving the
original creators a cent. But just so you can save $5 while bending
over at Gamestop, this is okay? I suppose your argument to game
makers would be, "hey, just make games that last as long as cars."
Your "property" is just a delivery mechanism. You don't own anything
but a right to play... which you and fossils like Doug are about to
learn very soon from the way things are going.
Morgan
No they are imposing restrictions on the resale of digital content that
you have bought that is linked to a physical product.
>You cannot resell DLC, and that is just as true for ME2 as
> it has been for every other game with DLC.
But why do you seem to think,that this is a good thing?
> I buy ME2. It comes with free DLC.
> I sell ME2. The buyter does not get that free DLC.
>
> I buy an MMORPG. It comes with X months free play,
> I sell the MMORPG. The buyer does not get those X months free play.
>
> How is that different?
Blatantly obvious I'd have thought. The X months free play will
typically have already been used up by the original buyer. Access to a
MMORPG is an ongoing service that a company provide. DLC is not a
service it is a product.
> I buy an iPod.
> I buy tracks on iTunes to play on the iPod.
> I sell the iPod. The buyer does not get access to those tracks.
> Exactly the same would be true if the iPod came with a coupon for $X free
> tracks from iTunes, the second hand buyer would not get the benefit of that
> coupon.
Because the tracks are linked to an itunes account and the original
purchaser will typically still have the tracks on their PC/Mac. The ipod
is simply a device that can access the account and locally store media.
This becomes a mater of legality and copyright.
The alMIGHTY N
wrote:
The same thing can be said about a used game. Unless someone takes the
time to reseal and rewrap the game (and make sure there are no
scratches, fingerprints, dust, creases in the manual, etc.), you'll be
under absolutely no illusion that the game is new.
> It doesn't affect new car sales one bit, if you want a
> new car then you have to go buy one.
You can say the exact same thing about games. If you want a brand new
game that nobody has used, nobody has touched, etc. then you have to
buy it new. If you want to unwrap that plastic, just like if you want
that "new car smell," you have to buy the goods new.
The used car market has just as much of an effect on the new car
market as the used games market has on the new games market. If you
remove used games or used cars from the picture, you've got people who
have to buy new goods.
> A used game is undistinguishable
> from a new game, and people can buy and resell them over and over
> again without affecting the play experience... also without giving the
> original creators a cent.
That's not exactly true. A "certified used car" is a used car as well
but is as indistinguishable from a new car as a used game is from a
new game. Sure, there's little details like the odometer not being at
0 (or close to 0 since new cars are rarely at 0 miles), but there are
also little details like fingerprints or scratches on the back of a
disc, the case having a giant sticker on it, that grimy feel when
handling something that may have passed through several hands...
Ugh. I get the shivers just thinking about those things. I rarely buy
used games because I just can't stand these things.
And while it's true that these things may not necessarily affect the
gaming experience, they are noticeable attributes of the physical
property that you did purchase, whether it's just a "delivery
mechanism" as you later stated or not.
> But just so you can save $5 while bending
> over at Gamestop, this is okay? I suppose your argument to game
> makers would be, "hey, just make games that last as long as cars."
If I buy anything used, it's going to be from eBay where at least I
can see that a specific game doesn't have stickers all over it or a
ripped manual... and where GameStop isn't double dipping on the
transaction.
Not that I have a big problem with GameStop and other companies
selling used games. That's another discussion, though...
> Your "property" is just a delivery mechanism. You don't own anything
> but a right to play... which you and fossils like Doug are about to
> learn very soon from the way things are going.
It's all a matter of perception. Most consumers won't see things this
way and if they don't like the changes enough they won't buy the games
(or will at least wait until the prices of the games drop after a year
on the shelves). Ultimately, it's going to be the game companies
suffering still.
In any case, using cars as a comparison seems unwieldy just because
cars are a much bigger purchase into which a lot more thought and
consideration goes. There's a whole different mentality to purchasing
a video game.
What about books? Similarly, you're buying a "delivery mechanism." You
don't own the intellectual property, just this particular physical
printed copy of the book. Do you have the same problem with people who
buy used books? Or shop in garage sales?
Hell, if I have a bunch of books I'm not reading anymore, I don't
think there's a problem with setting up a little table one Sunday
morning and putting up signs on the road to come to my garage sale. Or
with just putting them up on eBay. Or on PaperbackSwap.com.
The alMIGHTY N
> On Feb 15, 9:34 pm, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> > "Jonah Falcon" <jonahny...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:KJidnbX-rfsytOfW...@earthlink.com...
>
> > >http://www.tomsguide.com/us/ea-project-ten-dollars-dlc,news-5797.html
>
> > You know, I really don't have a problem with this really. I mean, they are
> > in this to make money and when someone sells a game used for much cheaper
> > than retail, or worse yet, gives it away free, they get the content free. IF
> > all there is to this is just a $10 fee to access the extra content, it is
> > still much cheaper than buying the game retail, even if it is at a reduced
> > price.
>
> The only problem is it cheapens the resell value for the original
> buyer. If I bought a game new for $60 and then wanted to sell it later
> on the down the road, it's value would automatically be decreased by
> $10 for me since the new owner would probably end up paying the fee at
> some point. Granted you're not forced to pay the $10 for the extra
> content, but with the way companies are holding out vital portions of
> the games these days and calling them "extra content", I imagine it
> will become a necessity eventually.
Examples of "vital portions" in recent games?
> I do understand EA's dilemma on this issue, and they of course can do
> whatever they want. All I'm saying is I hope they weighed the cost of
> brand name and consumer loyalty against the extra $10 they think
> they'll get from used game purchases. Half the used games people buy
> are barely worth $10-$30 as it is, so another $10 could easily sway
> many people form buying these games and ultimately sour them on EA
> products altogether.
>
> At some point it will just come down to the fact that EA games in the
> long run will really cost $70 minimum instead of the usual $60, and
> their used games will now have to be priced accordingly. Consumers
> will then just have to decide if said games are worth the extra
> premium or not.
The alMIGHTY N
> Tom <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
> > How is it automatically decreased and cheapen the resell value? You sell the
> > game for what it is deemed worth at the time. If you sell it privately, you
> > sell it for what it is worth for you as well. It is up to the buyer to buy
> > it or not, even under the understanding of what needs to be done for DLC,
> > etc. from the game maker. But, if that person wanted to spend even $20 for
> > the game retail (typically when it get less than Platinum sales price) when
> > it is probably going to be at its cheapest, they still are saving money. If
> > that person said no, then they will spend more for retail.
>
> The problem is, this doesn't apply to extra DLC. That's under a separate
> license and when you buy it, you understand that it is not transferable to
> another person.
>
> What this applies to is the gaming experience you purchased when you
> bought the copy of the game at retail. If you want to sell (or lend) that
> same experience to someone else, they'll have to pay an additional $10 to
> unlock certain features. I'm guessing the "certain features" bit will
> vary from title to title here, but the effect will be the same - in order
> for a 2nd hand user to play the same game you did, they'll have to pay $10
> to EA.
>
> If you ask me, this is essentially a variant on the "silvering" scheme
> from DiVX (the defunct disc format - not the nifty video codec) All DiVX
> discs were essentially pay-per-view, but for an extra fee, an owner could
> "silver" the disc, which would allow him to play it an unlimited number of
> times - but only on HIS player. If he took a silvered disc to a friend's
> house, it would still behave as a pay-per-view disc, unless the friend
> ALSO paid the extra money to silver the disc for his player. It's also
> one of the reasons DiVX died a much deserved ignoble death.
>
> Now it seems EA wants to do the same thing. Essentially, all their game
> discs will be about as useful as a game demo. To unlock the full version
> - but only for your console - you'll have to pay EA. Only in this case,
> the retail version comes with 1 "free" silvering. What happens if that
> user's game console dies? Can these licenses be transfered somehow, or
> will suddenly the first-hand owner suddenly find himself in posession of a
> bunch of really expensive demo discs - each requiring a new $10 unlocking
> fee?
I don't think this is what they're saying at all. The Cerberus Network
in Mass Effect 2 is an example of their policy in action. You don't
miss out on anything but extra content - you can play the entire full
game without ever accessing the Cerberus Network.
The alMIGHTY N
> "Doug Jacobs" <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote in message
>
> the used game. What is wrong with charging for I when in the end it is
> still cheaper to buy a game used then pay a fee for DLC you and everyone, no
> matter, still has to pay for. Even if the person could buy the game retail
> at its cheapest, which would be around $20 after a long period of time after
> release, they are still saving money if they get it used from Ebay or even
> free from a friend. EA is just making money that isn't normally the way of a
> person buying the game retail. Ultimately, it comes down to choice anyway.
That $20 concept is confusing me. You'll save money on it used only if
you purchase the game at less than $10 since you have to account for
the $10 fee.
> > If you ask me, this is essentially a variant on the "silvering" scheme
> > from DiVX (the defunct disc format - not the nifty video codec) All DiVX
> > discs were essentially pay-per-view, but for an extra fee, an owner could
> > "silver" the disc, which would allow him to play it an unlimited number of
> > times - but only on HIS player. If he took a silvered disc to a friend's
> > house, it would still behave as a pay-per-view disc, unless the friend
> > ALSO paid the extra money to silver the disc for his player. It's also
> > one of the reasons DiVX died a much deserved ignoble death.
>
> Not even the same
>
> > Now it seems EA wants to do the same thing. Essentially, all their game
> > discs will be about as useful as a game demo. To unlock the full version
> > - but only for your console - you'll have to pay EA. Only in this case,
> > the retail version comes with 1 "free" silvering. What happens if that
> > user's game console dies? Can these licenses be transfered somehow, or
> > will suddenly the first-hand owner suddenly find himself in posession of a
> > bunch of really expensive demo discs - each requiring a new $10 unlocking
> > fee?
>
> It's not tied to the console Doug, it is tied to the gamertag. We covered
> this before, I have had four consoles now, and I have been able to download
> a use all of the DLCs I have purchased long ago.
The console is definitely in there somewhere. When you first download
the game, that console becomes the primary console for that DLC. If
you log into someone else's console with your gamertag, you can freely
use that DLC, but when you sign out, you can no longer use it - you
have to be connected to Live. On your primary console, though, you can
freely use the content without being connected.
This prevents someone from signing into a friend's console,
downloading the paid-for content, then leaving and letting the friend
use it with no abandon.
The alMIGHTY N
> >> And why I enourage others to do the same.
>
> > Why should DLC be able to be transferred? His initial point was that the DLC
> > is tied to the hardware, which is totally false, it is tied to the gamertag.
> > DLC from XBL has always been tied to the person who buys it. If I wanted to
> > lend my gamertag to a friend, then they could play my DLC and the games, but
> > then I could not go online at home or access my goodies. Not only that, they
> > don't get their own gamer scores and achievements. Does that also bother you
> > too, that you cannot transfer your scores and to your friends?
>
> Actually, it's tied to both your gamertag and the hardware.
>
> If I download something on my console, all users on my console have access
> to that content - regardless of whether the account is gold, silver, or
> offline.
>
> At the same time, if I go to a friend's house, "recover my account" on his
> console, and redownload stuff, only my account on that console can use it
> unless I transfer the licenese to that console as well (which I think you
> can only do a certain number of times.) This is mainly to handle the
> situation when your console dies, and you get a new one from Microsoft, or
> buy a new console.
>
> about EA intentionally locking (part of) the game unless a code is
> entered. The game comes with 1 free code, but after that, it's
> $10/person. So, you buy the game and lend it to a friend. He now has to
> pay $10. I don't know enough about the program to know if the code is
> per-user, or per-console. Considering many households have multiple
> players, a per-user fee like this will definitely result in EA losing
> sales left and right.
I would be surprised if the code couldn't be shared by the accounts on
the same console as the one that activated it...
The alMIGHTY N
> "Doug Jacobs" <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote in message
>
> my first. It is tied to the gamertag. When you redownload, you also have to
> update your gamertag to your new hardware and there are no limits. I don't
> know how else to state this, but it works every time.
Correctly? ;-)
Unless you transfer the licenses of the games to the new console, you
absolutely cannot access the content whenever you want. If you are not
connected to Xbox Live with the original gamertag, you cannot use the
content on that console.
There are still downloaded games on my console whose licenses I didn't
transfer. When I'm offline, guess what, those Arcade games revert to
demos. The ones I transferred? Full games even offline.
And when I go to my nephew's and download games there using my
account, he can play them so long as my gamertag is connected but the
second the connection is gone or I sign out of my gamertag, those
games are demos again.
I think I stated that fairly clearly. :-)
> > And at any rate, EA's Project $10 is not about after-market DLC. It's
> > about EA intentionally locking (part of) the game unless a code is
> > entered. The game comes with 1 free code, but after that, it's
> > $10/person. So, you buy the game and lend it to a friend. He now has to
> > pay $10. I don't know enough about the program to know if the code is
> > per-user, or per-console. Considering many households have multiple
> > players, a per-user fee like this will definitely result in EA losing
> > sales left and right.
>
> Again, while I may not agree with this, EA and any dev/publisher are losing
> money from retail sales on used games being transferred to another party. I
> don't think it is unreasonable for them to make this charge. If they were
> doing this for retail games sold right off, then that would be bullcrap, but
> this isn't the case. Just keep in mind that this is more than likely a means
> to recoup lost licensing profits from the resale of a game they cannot make
> money on as if sold fresh from a retail outlet.
>
> In any case, it is a choice whether one wants to pay the money or not, and
> it isn't forced upon them. If they locked the game out, that would be an
> issue.
Tom
"The King of Gaming" <king.of...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ab75f89-e5a3-4085...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
And Windows has been like that since its inception, MS never had a way of
enforcing its EULA until product activation with XP. I remember using Win98
and lending it four of my friends who wanted and they could install it
without issue because it doesn't register online. Now, I don't feel badly
for MS because most PCs were bought with the OS already installed even then
and thye made their money. But, you can imagine how much money they weren't
making in the retail software dept when considering that one could get away
with installing the system then without ever making a pruchase.
The alMIGHTY N
> Tom wrote:
> > It really isn't important whether or not you like it or not, even for me
> > as well. They are in this to make money. It cost money to make DLC, so
> > why would anyone think it should be free. People can push back all they
> > want, all that would happen would be no DLC. Should people get free maps
> > for COD games at the expense of the developer (as an example)?
>
> It didn't used to be uncommon for new free multiplayer maps to be
> included in game patches. It'as what used to be called "continued
> support" for a product.
Only certain developers would do this, though. Hell, some PC
developers charged consumers for content that other gamers made!
The alMIGHTY N
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:35:23 -0500, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> >"Trevor Smithson" <trevor_smith...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:34:36 -0500, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>"Jonah Falcon" <jonahny...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:KJidnbX-rfsytOfW...@earthlink.com...
> >>>>http://www.tomsguide.com/us/ea-project-ten-dollars-dlc,news-5797.html
>
> >> result in fewer good games for the rest of us.
>
> >> People should push back, hold out, and by God never buy this sort of
> >> bullshit DLC.
>
> >It really isn't important whether or not you like it or not, even for me as
> >well. They are in this to make money. It cost money to make DLC, so why
> >would anyone think it should be free. People can push back all they want,
> >all that would happen would be no DLC. Should people get free maps for COD
> >games at the expense of the developer (as an example)?
>
> interested and thus buying the game. Nowadays the idea is to chop out
> some section of the game and convert it to DLC. And now EA is trying
> to charge just to access DLC.
>
> I say no.
I don't see this happening at all. Just because content is production-
ready at or close to the launch date doesn't mean that it was "part of
the game."
If a team completed a game and then started working on DLC to be
released at a later date, then for some reason (either some QA issues
or business decisions) the game got pushed back, does that mean that
the team should just give away the DLC for free just because it looks
like it was ready all along?
Tom
"Trevor Smithson" <trevor_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fsqn5p5nh9cp647r...@4ax.com...
Again, your initial analogy doesn't work as I already pointed out. It
doesn't matter if you buy a different car, you're still buying a new car if
you sell your older one.
>
> Same with a game. Sell the old one, buy a different one from a
> different manufacturer. Or do whatever with the money.
What does your sale of your used game that you bought retail have to do with
EA charging those who bought a used game a fee to access the content you got
that came with the initial retail sale, regardless of whether you bought an
entirely different game? How does buying a totally different game make the
used game you sold somehow get a free pass from this access fee? This also
has nothing to do with comparison to the resale of a car.
>
> It's the same thing, it's my property, and the manufactuer should have
> no interest in the matter once I've bought something.
They don't care, and that's not at issue. You do not own the game in its
entirety, you just own the disc that has the game on it and you paid money
to be able to play it as much as you want. You cannot copy it and sell it,
because you don't own the game itself. The software developer doesn't care
what you do with the disc as long as you are not violating copyright laws.
If you want to break it, feel free.
The alMIGHTY N
> Tom <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
> > Only charging for those WHO did not purchase the game retail. You know
> > that's how they make most of their money is from the initial sales of the
> > game at retail, licensing. Selling it used, they're getting nothing else
> > from it, as they got no licensing percentage from the sale. It is just a way
> > for them to recoup some of that money. Do I like it, no, but in the end, it
> > is up to the person who bought the game used, to make the decision. If this
> > were forced, then I would agree with you.
>
> Legally speaking, EA deserves no money for a license transfer. This isn't
> the same as creating a new instance here. One copy was bought, and one
> copy remains even when transferred to someone else. When you buy a used
> car, you don't then have to go pay the manufacturer (Ford, Toyota, etc.)
> do you? When you borrow a book from the library, you don't write a check
> to the publisher, do you? But that's exactly what EA is doing here.
When you borrow a book from the library, you don't cut a check to the
publisher but the library does. Libraries are funded by tax dollars,
some of which are used to pay licensing fees for the usage of the
media.
> After-market content - that is, stuff not included in the initial release
> of the game - is a separate issue here. What EA is literally saying is
> that everyone must pay again for the same copy of the game - which I
> suspect may violate existing copyright law.
But that's not what they're saying.
The alMIGHTY N
> "Doug Jacobs" <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > Tom <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> >> Only charging for those WHO did not purchase the game retail. You know
> >> that's how they make most of their money is from the initial sales of the
> >> game at retail, licensing. Selling it used, they're getting nothing else
> >> from it, as they got no licensing percentage from the sale. It is just a
> >> way
> >> for them to recoup some of that money. Do I like it, no, but in the end,
> >> it
> >> is up to the person who bought the game used, to make the decision. If
> >> this
> >> were forced, then I would agree with you.
>
> > Legally speaking, EA deserves no money for a license transfer. This isn't
> > the same as creating a new instance here. One copy was bought, and one
> > copy remains even when transferred to someone else. When you buy a used
> > car, you don't then have to go pay the manufacturer (Ford, Toyota, etc.)
> > do you? When you borrow a book from the library, you don't write a check
> > to the publisher, do you? But that's exactly what EA is doing here.
>
>
> Poor analogy with the car as I pointed out to Trevor. Most people who sell
> their cars off are going to get another one.
Absolutely irrelevant.
> I also didn't say they are
> getting money for a transfer of the license, or they would just do that. I
> assume this may be a reason for the charge to help offset the loss of not
> getting a retail sale on the books as a used copy is sold.
I think Doug misinterpreted what EA was saying. Going with the path
he's taken, though... do you think that it would be alright for movie
studios to insert some sort of DRM in all movies so that when you view
a used copy, you're missing part of the movie unless you pay a fee?
> > After-market content - that is, stuff not included in the initial release
> > of the game - is a separate issue here. What EA is literally saying is
> > that everyone must pay again for the same copy of the game - which I
> > suspect may violate existing copyright law.
>
> Windows and many software brands do this, or they would make money. Do you
> think it is OK for a software maker no to be able to have individual sales
> for their products? I mean, can you imagine one copy of Windows being able
> to be used as many times as one wanted? MS would lose out the ass on that
> deal as I could just lend my copy of windows for anyone and their relatives
> to install on as many machines as they want. Again, EA and whoever, are not
> making anyone pay for the access, it is a choice. Just imagine if these
> gaming companies decide on activation, then we all would have no choice.
Installed software like an operating system is a bad analogy because
the right to transfer a license revolves around the legal
responsibility to eradicate all traces of that software from your
system - if you give your Windows to a relative, you're legally
required to uninstall it from yours.
The alMIGHTY N
> On 2010-02-18, Doug Jacobs <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote:
>
> > After-market content - that is, stuff not included in the initial release
> > of the game - is a separate issue here. What EA is literally saying is
> > that everyone must pay again for the same copy of the game - which I
> > suspect may violate existing copyright law.
>
> You get the base game.
> You have to pay for the DLC, which the original buyer got for free.
> What exactly in 'copyright law' does this violate?
The problem with their first attempt at this - Mass Effect 2 - is that
it seems that if the player has no interest in what the original buyer
"got for free" but wants to later purchase new DLC like, say, an
expansion pack, they still have to pay the $15 for the Cerberus
Network.
Perhaps this isn't how it will work but that's the way it seems at the
moment.
The alMIGHTY N
> In message <mtRen.43110$kS2.19...@newsfe17.ams2>, Morgan
> <nos...@nospam.co.uk> writes
>
>
>
> >Sean Black wrote:
>
> >>> Imagine having to pay Honda an extra $1000 when you buy that used
> >>>Accord from
> >>> a neighbor. That's essentially what EA is doing here.
>
> >> I'd say it was more like, if you buy a new Accord and the dealer is
> >>having a special offer and giving you a free sat nav, you then sell
> >>the Accord but keep the sat nav. The guy that buys the Accord 2nd hand
> >>can then buy himself a sat nav, should he want one, but it's up to
> >>him to decide whether he wants it or not. Why should the original car
> >>dealer be force to also give the 2nd hand buyer a free sat nav, as it
> >>was only an incentive to get people to buy new from him?
>
> >Assuming we're inferring correctly about the situation. i.e. the second
> >hand buyer having to forlk out for any previously brought or included
> >DLC) then that becomes a false analogy.
>
> >A truer one would be if the car came with a SatNav that had free to
> >download maps after a one-off payment. What's actually happening is
> >the first bloke has already made that one-off payment, then sells the
> >SatNav with the car, but the company are now asking for a second
> >payment because the satnav has changed hands.
>
> The way I look at it, the sat nav (a portable one, not a built in one)
> is a nice to have but not essential, optional extra. Should I have had
> the chance to pay an extra $1000 for it when I bought the new car, I
> probably wouldn't have bothered with it, as it is the dealer is offering
> it to me for free as an incentive to buy a new car from him, rather than
> a 2nd hand car from someone else. It's a nice extra to have, but I can
> still make full use of the car without it.
>
> Now if the new car came with a built-in sat nav, but you had to pay
> $1000 to activate the maps, but was done free if I bought the car new,
> then I'd fully expect them to be activated once and for all, so the
> second hand buyer should expect to have use of those maps for nothing as
> they'd already been activated.
>
> So, if the content is on the disc when it's first sold then it should be
> available for free to whoever owns the disc. If the content is
> downloadable for a fee, but given away for free if you buy the disc new
> then I don't see the problem in charging for it if you buy the disc
> second hand and the original user hasn't already claimed the free DLC.
> --
> Sean Black
Going with this analogy, Mass Effect 2 would be like buying a car with
a special player that only plays media you purchase from an online
service, selling the car used to someone else, and that someone having
to pay to activate the player in addition to paying for each piece of
media they download.
Tom
"The alMIGHTY N" <natl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9e2377c0-e966-4c33...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
It's tied to your gamertag, trust me. I already hit this ad nauseam and
stated what I did to use my purchased DLC already. Once I updated my
gamertag to my new consoles, I was able to download all of my DLC. When I
bought my 60gig HDD, I was able to download all of my DLCs. I have done this
now on four consoles
>
> There are still downloaded games on my console whose licenses I didn't
> transfer. When I'm offline, guess what, those Arcade games revert to
> demos. The ones I transferred? Full games even offline.
I mentioned DLCs, I am really unsure how arcade games work, but I would
assume that I could get them again if I had to get a new console or my HDD
failed with my content on it.
>
> And when I go to my nephew's and download games there using my
> account, he can play them so long as my gamertag is connected but the
> second the connection is gone or I sign out of my gamertag, those
> games are demos again.
>
> I think I stated that fairly clearly. :-)
That's about what I said, it is tied to the gamertag. I know the rest. If I
bought a new console but couldn't connect and put the HDD with my content on
it, the content won't play, until I can get my gamertag connected to MS that
shows what is stored in my GT what I have purchased.
The alMIGHTY N
wrote:
> > > in this to make money and when someone sells a game used for much cheaper
> > > than retail, or worse yet, gives it away free, they get the content free. IF
> > > all there is to this is just a $10 fee to access the extra content, it is
> > > still much cheaper than buying the game retail, even if it is at a reduced
> > > price.
>
> > a neighbor. That's essentially what EA is doing here.
>
> resemblance to a new Honda on the lot and doesn't affect Honda's
> ability to sell new cars. A used game plays just as well as a new
> game.
A certified used Honda bears quite a resemblance to a new Honda on the
lot and will likely look even more like a new car than any used game
disc/case/manual would look like a new game disc/case/manual. :-)
A used car most certainly has an impact on Honda's ability to sell a
new car. If someone is willing to consider a used car but has no used
cars available to purchase, they'll purchase a new car instead. If
there's a used car in mint condition, plenty of people would consider
purchasing that instead of buying a new one - that costs the
manufacturer the particular sale.
A second hand market always has an effect on the retail market.
> > If I buy a game that comes on physical media, then I am allowed to
> > transfer ownership of the license to that information contained within as
> > I see fit. If that means selling the game for $5, or even lending it to a
> > friend for free - so long as I'm not violating copyright law, what I do
> > with MY copy of the item is MY business.
>
> That's an example of trying to apply an outdated notion (copyrights)
> to the 21st century, and why we have had all of these issues with DRM,
> the RIAA, etc. It just doesn't apply any more.
>
> The bottom line is that video games have become a single use item, and
> EA wants everyone who uses to pay.
The bottom line? Video games didn't become a single use item - the
publishers and developers simply decided that they would *like* them
to become single use items. The question is whether the publishers/
developers legally have the right to decide this and whether the
market will accept this.
> They don't want you to beat a
> game, then sell/give it to your friend, have them beat it, and so
> on... all the while they have only gotten the initial sale.
I can certainly understand the motivation. I'm just curious how
successful their attempt to enforce their desires without driving away
customers will be.
> Now
> whether that's right or wrong is another issue entirely... but this is
> the heart of the issue. People say, well make the games good enough
> to where people want to hold on to them, but that's pretty
> unrealistic.
Absolutely. Most people play a game once and then never again (thus,
the desire to be able to sell off the game to someone else to not feel
as though you just paid $60 for ten hours of playtime).
> The current design of games suits most gamers quite well
> and even games with great replay value eventually make it to the
> chopping block because there are so many games available and most
> people just want to move on to the next game.
>
> Also, as usual the blame is being heaped on the wrong party. People
> love to whine about EA or MS but have no problem bending over and
> grabbing their ankles for Gamestop. Yes, blame the pawn shop of
> gaming who has no problem giving you a few measly dollars for a new
> release trade-in and then turning around and selling it for a whopping
> $5 off of retail. Then repeating this process over and over with the
> same games. So the companies who create and develop the games, who
> spend huge money marketing the game get one initial sale, while a pawn
> shop whose board of directors couldn't make an Atari 2600 game rake in
> the dough selling someone else's creative work over and over. Please
> explain to me how this is good for the industry...
You sound just like my buddy. LOL
I don't have a problem with the existence of a second-hand market but
I do think it's rather unfair that GameStop gets to make all the
money. Maybe if there was some way to set up some sort of relationship
whereby GameStop paid some sort of small royalty fee to the publisher
for the sale of a used game?
If I buy or sell used games, it's on eBay or Craig's List, anyway.
Tom
"The alMIGHTY N" <natl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20a2461e-8c10-4950...@f29g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
As was the car analogy
>> I also didn't say they are
>> getting money for a transfer of the license, or they would just do that.
>> I
>> assume this may be a reason for the charge to help offset the loss of not
>> getting a retail sale on the books as a used copy is sold.
>
> I think Doug misinterpreted what EA was saying. Going with the path
> he's taken, though... do you think that it would be alright for movie
> studios to insert some sort of DRM in all movies so that when you view
> a used copy, you're missing part of the movie unless you pay a fee?
>
That would be a neat trick, determining what part of a movie you missed.
Besides, we are talking about extras outside what is from the initial sale
anyway.
>> > After-market content - that is, stuff not included in the initial
>> > release
>> > of the game - is a separate issue here. What EA is literally saying is
>> > that everyone must pay again for the same copy of the game - which I
>> > suspect may violate existing copyright law.
>>
>> Windows and many software brands do this, or they would make money. Do
>> you
>> think it is OK for a software maker no to be able to have individual
>> sales
>> for their products? I mean, can you imagine one copy of Windows being
>> able
>> to be used as many times as one wanted? MS would lose out the ass on that
>> deal as I could just lend my copy of windows for anyone and their
>> relatives
>> to install on as many machines as they want. Again, EA and whoever, are
>> not
>> making anyone pay for the access, it is a choice. Just imagine if these
>> gaming companies decide on activation, then we all would have no choice.
>
> Installed software like an operating system is a bad analogy because
> the right to transfer a license revolves around the legal
> responsibility to eradicate all traces of that software from your
> system - if you give your Windows to a relative, you're legally
> required to uninstall it from yours.
That wasn't my point, only that one who had the original disc is the retail
purchaser where EA etals want to make more money. Odds are, if one sells
there version of windows, they purchased another benefitting them to the
services they paid for again. This isn't the case with sold games where EA,
etals want to make money from those used games.
The alMIGHTY N
wrote:
> On Feb 17, 11:47 am, "RKRM" <r...@safe-mail.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Great post. And excellent points. I know I want great games and so since I
> > rarely buy a used game and always hang onto my games this whole thing is
> > less of an issue for me. The thing is though that EA needs to be careful
> > they don't do massive damage to Gamestop/EBGames/GameCrazy/Etc. And speaking
> > of Game Crazy which is owned by Hollywood Video - I wonder what percentage
> > of VG sales go to Blockbuster, Hollywood, Game Fly etc. I have no doubt they
> > sell more to Wal-Mart and Toys R' Us but they are still walking a fine line
> > here. As far as the 5$ dollars off retail goes it is my opinion that is done
> > to encourage new game sales. I know I wouldn't buy used to save 5 bux.
>
> See, I've always seen it the opposite. That Gamestop is basically
> betting that the average Joe six-pack, who is going to trade the game
> in anyway in a few weeks, doesn't care about the condition and
> basically sees it as another extra value meal to take the $5.
Definitely. GameStop would prefer the customer purchase the used game
rather than the new game since they make more money off that sale.
> > It's
> > the older deeply discounted titles that are more attractive. Then again by
> > then the new games are cheaper too. Maybe I am not typical but when I want a
> > game I get it at or near release and keep it for at least the remainder of
> > the current generation. To me games are like books they can be enjoyed more
> > than once especially if a decent amount of time has gone by since originally
> > playing it. The bottom line is VG's are a business and without a robust
> > industry gamers will be screwed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Like you, I keep most of my games, selling the odd mistake or seasonal
> sports title. I honestly don't think the industry would have too big
> of a problem with all this if it were just private sales going on. I
> think it's the parasitic nature of Gamestop (and piracy, to a lesser
> extent) that is bringing on these measures. I've seen too many
> developer interviews that state as much.
I don't think piracy is as big an issue as some people make it out to
be. A lot of people who pirate games do so just because they can.
Obviously, this isn't everyone, but there's a good chunk of these
people who likely would never have even considered playing Game A if
they had to pay any amount for it but have no qualms about wasting a
little bit of time on Game A if they didn't have to shell over a dime.
I know people with hundreds or even thousands of pirated DVDs who have
seen maybe one percent of them.
The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)
> I was gonna start a new thread but the new bonus round is very much
> relevant to this thread
>
> They talk about the model of paying to play , such as paying for
> prestige in MW2 .
>
> http://www.gametrailers.com/episode/bonusround/402?ch=2&sd=1_hd
Prestige is like experience? If so, that's dumb. I think it's fine to
offer suped up weapons or armor or something like that so a player can
pay for something that will help them accelerate faster, but to pay
for the actual acceleration is just dumb.
The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)
> I'm just wondering, Tom. Does EA's semen taste good?
Probably not as good as Microsoft's does to you.
> "Tom" <jimver...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0d3564ff-2eeb-4b7b...@y33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 12:19 am, Jordan <lu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 16, 8:46 pm, Tom <jimver...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And I really don't see the issue with this at all. IF one buys the
> > > game used, then EA, MS, Sony, etc don't make money on the licenses.
> > > But then you think their services should be there for those to use
> > > them without ever having to have paid for the license (buying retail).
> > > In the end, no one is forced to pay for the service, but they also
> > > choose not to get any of the game extras when they come out.
>
> > Then charge for the content. Charging for the menu to access the
> > content is petty.
>
> > - Jordan
>
> You're missing the point. The companies I listed lose money when a
> game is resold, so why should they feel the obligation to sell the
> content when they didn't make money from the license of the sale.
> That's why one doesn't have to pay a fee for access if they buy it
> retail. Even then, as I already stated, it is still cheaper to pay for
> the access than to buy a retail game anyway.
>
> AFAIK, this is only an issue for console games, since one doesn't have
> to use a product key to play the game, like on a PC.
The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)
> On Feb 17, 12:19 am, Jordan <lu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 16, 8:46 pm, Tom <jimver...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And I really don't see the issue with this at all. IF one buys the
> > > game used, then EA, MS, Sony, etc don't make money on the licenses.
> > > But then you think their services should be there for those to use
> > > them without ever having to have paid for the license (buying retail).
> > > In the end, no one is forced to pay for the service, but they also
> > > choose not to get any of the game extras when they come out.
>
> > Then charge for the content. Charging for the menu to access the
> > content is petty.
>
> > - Jordan
>
> You're missing the point. The companies I listed lose money when a
> game is resold, so why should they feel the obligation to sell the
> content when they didn't make money from the license of the sale.
> That's why one doesn't have to pay a fee for access if they buy it
> retail. Even then, as I already stated, it is still cheaper to pay for
> the access than to buy a retail game anyway.
>
> AFAIK, this is only an issue for console games, since one doesn't have
> to use a product key to play the game, like on a PC.
This actually *hurts* EA. If they want to charge simply for the
"privilege" of forking over even more money, they'll simply lose out
on the sales of the DLC, which was supposed to be the game industry's
new golden chicken, and they won't get either the sales from the DLC
*or* from the second-hand game.
Tom
"The alMIGHTY N" <natl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e9f89288-3d7f-4dd3...@u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Read it again (the part about Ebay or getting it free). If they bought the
game retail at $20, it is a non-issues in this case as I was alluding to
someone wanting to wait that long for a price drop. Buying the game for $20
at a retail center won't incur the access fee since the game will have never
been used yet.
The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)
> On 2010-02-17, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > It depends. The article reads as if the person who buys the second hand
> > game will not be able to access the full original content if this is the
> > case then frankly that's shocking. If they are simply going to charge
> > for access to DLC that has already been bought and linked to the serial
> > key then thee is no moral difference.
>
> What is *actually* happening with the current example, ME2:
> There is additional content available to buy and download on day 1.
> Each retail copy of the game comes with a single-use code which gives free
> access to this content.
> So the original buyer gets the content for free, second hand buyers, or
> those using game rental services, will have to buy it or do without.
> The additional content is not required to play the game.
The Cerberus Network is the means by which players of Mass Effect 2
purchase all downloadable content for the game. When the inevitable
episodes are released, you'll need to download them in-game through
The Cerberus Network. At least, this is the way EA seems to be
positioning it with regards specifically to Mass Effect 2.
As a nice free bonus for players who buy a retail copy of the game,
there's some armor, weapons and a brand spanking new character. You'll
get all this if you pay the $15 charge for the Cerberus Network as a
second hand game buyer.
However, if you don't care about Zaeed, the new armor, the new weapon,
etc. and are only interested in buying "Episode Pack 1" or "Episode
Pack 2" or "Krogan armor" or whatever else they happen to release for
a price in the future, you still have to pay the $15 for the Cerberus
Network. It seems they're circumventing the Xbox Live Marketplace
functionality of just buying the add-on and having it automatically
installed into the game through the console itself - now you have to
go through this new portal and to access this portal, you have to pay
$15.
> > The company has sold one copy. If a customer wants to sell that one
> > copy on then there should be no issue at all. If the customer has
> > already paid for the right to access DLC (DLC available on release day
> > is morally suspect IMHO to start with) then those rights should be
> > passed on with the product.
>
> But it isn't, and never has been. There are many games with DLC available,
> and exactly the same situation is true of all of them, the DLC does not
> get transfered if you sell the game. This is nothing new.
You misread.
DLC shouldn't be passed on with the used game but the *right to access
a menu in order to pay the publisher for DLC* should be passed on.
> > There is no other product on the market that
> > I can think of where a publisher/manufacturer can impose restrictions on
> > resale.
>
> They are not imposing any restrictions on resale of the physical product
> you have bought. You cannot resell DLC, and that is just as true for ME2 as
> it has been for every other game with DLC.
>
> I buy ME2. It comes with free DLC.
> I sell ME2. The buyter does not get that free DLC.
But they should get the ability to access the menu that allows you to
purchase future DLC. Instead, they're forced to pay $15 for this
access (not the DLC but the access to purchase the DLC).
> I buy an MMORPG. It comes with X months free play,
> I sell the MMORPG. The buyer does not get those X months free play.
>
> How is that different?
>
> I buy an iPod.
> I buy tracks on iTunes to play on the iPod.
> I sell the iPod. The buyer does not get access to those tracks.
> Exactly the same would be true if the iPod came with a coupon for $X free
> tracks from iTunes, the second hand buyer would not get the benefit of that
> coupon.
Using this analogy, Apple would charge the second hand iPod buyer for
iTunes.
The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)
> Just wait til you have to pay $10 to finish the game.
That's exactly what Doug thought they meant. And that's where some
gamers fear the industry is headed...
> "BakaMatt" <mlern...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:553d73e6-8f6d-4e8c...@z1g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 9:22 am, PBDepot <chu...@paintball-depot.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 5:01 am, Paul Murray <p...@murray.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 2010-02-17, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > It depends. The article reads as if the person who buys the second
> > > > hand
> > > > game will not be able to access the full original content if this is
> > > > the
> > > > case then frankly that's shocking. If they are simply going to charge
> > > > for access to DLC that has already been bought and linked to the
> > > > serial
> > > > key then thee is no moral difference.
>
> > > What is *actually* happening with the current example, ME2:
> > > There is additional content available to buy and download on day 1.
> > > Each retail copy of the game comes with a single-use code which gives
> > > free
> > > access to this content.
> > > So the original buyer gets the content for free, second hand buyers, or
> > > those using game rental services, will have to buy it or do without.
> > > The additional content is not required to play the game.
>
> > > > The company has sold one copy. If a customer wants to sell that one
> > > > copy on then there should be no issue at all. If the customer has
> > > > already paid for the right to access DLC (DLC available on release day
> > > > is morally suspect IMHO to start with) then those rights should be
> > > > passed on with the product.
>
> > > But it isn't, and never has been. There are many games with DLC
> > > available,
> > > and exactly the same situation is true of all of them, the DLC does not
> > > get transfered if you sell the game. This is nothing new.
>
> > > > There is no other product on the market that
> > > > I can think of where a publisher/manufacturer can impose restrictions
> > > > on
> > > > resale.
>
> > > They are not imposing any restrictions on resale of the physical product
> > > you have bought. You cannot resell DLC, and that is just as true for ME2
> > > as
> > > it has been for every other game with DLC.
>
> > > I buy ME2. It comes with free DLC.
> > > I sell ME2. The buyter does not get that free DLC.
>
> > > I buy an MMORPG. It comes with X months free play,
> > > I sell the MMORPG. The buyer does not get those X months free play.
>
> > > How is that different?
>
> > > I buy an iPod.
> > > I buy tracks on iTunes to play on the iPod.
> > > I sell the iPod. The buyer does not get access to those tracks.
> > > Exactly the same would be true if the iPod came with a coupon for $X
> > > free
> > > tracks from iTunes, the second hand buyer would not get the benefit of
> > > that
> > > coupon.
>
> > Right. My only real concern is that EA may start holding back certain
> > content in a game and call it DLC just to ensure they don't lose out
> > on used game profits. Yes, maybe the original buyer will get that so
> > called DLC for free, so it's a moot point for them, but the DLC could
> > be so crucial to the overall usefulness of the game that the person
> > who buys it second hand couldn't really play the expected full game
> > without getting this basically mandatory DLC as well. If this ever
> > becomes the case then it would most definitely subtract $10 from the
> > seller's overall resale value since the second hand buyer would now
> > have to account for that cost in their purchase.
>
> > It would basically boil down to EA charging everyone $10 extra for
> > their games to make up for lost profits with used game sales. Is this
> > a smart financial decision on their part, or would they be shooting
> > themselves in the foot with customer loyalty and brand name? (i.e.
> > customers who resale games and the ones who buy used will have to
> > decide if EA games are worth $10 more than every other publisher's
> > games.)
>
> > I imagine EA has absolutely considered these scenarios and it'll be
> > interesting to see how they ultimately handle the situation. You can
> > bet just about every other video game publisher out there will be
> > watching what happens in hopes one day they could possibly do the
> > same.
>
> > I don't think we'll ever see such an evil cycle like this come to
> > fruition, but the possibility of it is disturbing to say the least.
>
> That's exactly the concern that sprung to my mind when I first saw
> this.
>
> DLC content began as a way to provide additions to a game, but I'm
> seeing it push more and more towards an anti-piracy tool. At what
> point will it shift subtly from bonus features to gotta haves?
>
> I thought game companies had reached the sweet spot with the "bonus"
> one-time DLC use codes. It provides a little extra content for those
> who purchased the full game. Not locked out to owners of used games,
> but if they wanted it, they needed to fork out a few dollars.
>
> That was a good stopping point. Reward the early adopters, and allow
> some kickback from resales.
>
> Paying for the ability to pay for additional content is ludicrous, and
> I can't think of anyone in their right mind who would consider it. EA
> has to realize this, and the only sane way for them to pull it off is
> to slip something extremely desirable or crucial into the DLC window.
>
> It'd be a dick move, but it wouldn't be the first time they've done
> something so absurd. They just better be ready to accept the fact that
> they might be shooting themself in the foot. Record rates of piracy
> against the Spore activation model, hmm?
The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)
> "Trevor Smithson" <trevor_smith...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:21:27 -0800 (PST), Tom <jimver...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Feb 17, 12:19 am, Jordan <lu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>> On Feb 16, 8:46 pm, Tom <jimver...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> > And I really don't see the issue with this at all. IF one buys the
> >>> > game used, then EA, MS, Sony, etc don't make money on the licenses.
> >>> > But then you think their services should be there for those to use
> >>> > them without ever having to have paid for the license (buying retail).
> >>> > In the end, no one is forced to pay for the service, but they also
> >>> > choose not to get any of the game extras when they come out.
>
> >>> Then charge for the content. Charging for the menu to access the
> >>> content is petty.
>
> >>> - Jordan
>
> >>You're missing the point. The companies I listed lose money when a
> >>game is resold, so why should they feel the obligation to sell the
> >>content when they didn't make money from the license of the sale.
>
> > no loss on their part. Once I own the game, the developer/publisher
> > is no longer part of the equation.
>
> I disagree, they are losing money when games change hand through used sales
> of the games as that was a potential retail sale there. The worst thing that
> can happen is that, when you buy a game, the game has product key that must
> activate it online and then it is permanently tied to that person's
> gamertag, then that would be an issue and I hope that never comes to pass,
> but that could be their solution. But, MS and game makers could easily do
> that. Look at Windows and Office products, they do that, so people cannot
> sell the systems used or make copies of them. How much money would MS lose,
> if I bought Windows and just I lend it out to everyone to install on their
> PCs to use without ever having to worry about activation or using the same
> product key over and over again?
This is no way a parallel as when you sell your copy of a game used,
you no longer can use it.
> > It's all part of the trend to change this and make media into a
> > neverending rental, with no true ownership, no resales.
>
> Well, as of now we own the games, but if they went that route, I would stop
> gaming because it wouldn't worth the time. But, I see no problem with them
> trying to make back a little money from used game sales, since they are not
> getting their licensing share as they do from actual retail sales.
The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)
wrote:
> On Feb 18, 6:41 am, Paul Murray <p...@murray.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2010-02-18, Tom <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Paul Murray" <p...@murray.net> wrote in message
> > >news:aM7fn.457802$gF5.1...@en-nntp-01.am2.easynews.com...
> > >>> "Doug Jacobs" <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote in message
> > >>>> Tom <jimver...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> You're missing the point. The companies I listed lose money when a
> > >>>>> game is resold,
However, with those other media, part of the transition is that the
individual charges are less. It costs notably less to purchase a
digital copy of a book, a CD or a movie than it does to purchase a
retail copy of said media. If video games followed suit, there would
be less push back from the consumer.
But if game companies think they'll be able to charge the same prices
while trying to reap the same benefits that book/music/movie
publishers do, they're in for a nasty surprise...