EA money grabbers

[Johnny Shearer]

Anyone else read about EA's moves into the secondhand market.

 

Whereby they intend to charge people who want to play multiplayer on line a one-off fee if they have bought their game secondhand.

 

At the moment I believe they're going to do this with the Tiger Woods games. I hope it fails.

 

And I can understand if the money went to the developers but I can't see that happening or if any did it would be minimal in my opinion.

[StD]

The alternative view is that at the moment, the game publishers, developers etc don't see any of the money from second hand sales. This move would put people off purchasing second hand and so will buy new instead (or at least will ensure a little more money to the design/publishing team in terms of the multiplayer fee). Even if the money doesn't go directly to the developers, it will surely translate to larger game budgets in the relatively near future.

 

I'm not saying I agree with EA's plans by the way, but it could possibly mean a better product if developers have larger budgets to play with. A price worth paying?

[Andy_Porter]

It's a shocking decision. Just like with any DRM I will now boycott their games and actively try to get them for free.

 

**** you EA.

 

It's a shame because Fifa WC is a brilliant game.

[St Marco]

They need to lower the price of brand new games in my view. If they were cheaper to buy the 2nd hand market would not be so popular. If you pay £40 for a game and hate it then you will obviously try and get some of your cash back or swap it for something else.

It is a bit of a gamble, a lot less so then if your like a film or new cd etc.. They cost about £8 so obviously re-sell value is not so high. Games will always have a popular 2nd hand market until it becomes pointless to sell them on.

[Ponty]

They need to lower the price of brand new games in my view. If they were cheaper to buy the 2nd hand market would not be so popular. If you pay £40 for a game and hate it then you will obviously try and get some of your cash back or swap it for something else.

It is a bit of a gamble, a lot less so then if your like a film or new cd etc.. They cost about £8 so obviously re-sell value is not so high. Games will always have a popular 2nd hand market until it becomes pointless to sell them on.

If you buy a new game, and hate it, You can return it within 10 days for a full refund. The guy in Gamestation told me that. I felt it was slightly open to abuse but apparently it is the case.

[Johnny Shearer]

The alternative view is that at the moment, the game publishers, developers etc don't see any of the money from second hand sales. This move would put people off purchasing second hand and so will buy new instead (or at least will ensure a little more money to the design/publishing team in terms of the multiplayer fee). Even if the money doesn't go directly to the developers, it will surely translate to larger game budgets in the relatively near future.

 

I'm not saying I agree with EA's plans by the way, but it could possibly mean a better product if developers have larger budgets to play with. A price worth paying?

 

I would take the the more cynical view that the extra fees generated would be going to the shareholders rather than back into developing the games.

 

I can accept that offering DLC for a fee going to be the norm as it at least gives people the option to buy extra content.

 

EA are effectively trying to cut off the secondhand market. If this starts off in the US as a fee of $10, it'll most likely translate as £10 over here. Who would bother with buying a game for £10 only to have to pay another £10 when they want to play against someone online?

 

Also it may result in people waiting until games are reduced to buy it originally, therefore initial sales would be down for the companyand developers get even less as a result.

 

No other industry charges you to pay for something in addition to the secondhand cost, so why should gaming be different?

[stevegrant]

If you buy a new game, and hate it, You can return it within 10 days for a full refund. The guy in Gamestation told me that. I felt it was slightly open to abuse but apparently it is the case.

That's possibly Gamestation's company policy (although that may not be up to date, as they're now owned by Game so you would assume they now have the same policies - Game haven't operated that policy for years), but it's not in consumer law. The only time you are legally eligible for a refund/replacement is if the product is faulty.

 

If there's any other reason for requesting a refund, it'll be entirely subject to the company's policy as to whether they give you your money back.

 

Game used to do the money-back guarantee years ago (back when I used to work there, circa 2001), but stopped it a year or two later, presumably because it was being abused. I know of people who used had a modded PS2 with a hard-drive to boot the games from, they'd buy the game from the shop, take it home, copy it to the HDD and then take the game back for a refund

[Baj]

I know of people who used had a modded PS2 with a hard-drive to boot the games from, they'd buy the game from the shop, take it home, copy it to the HDD and then take the game back for a refund

[-X

[Draino76]

It would destroy the second hand market foe EA games. Which is seriously no biggie. Anyone for a game of Fifa 08?

[Johnny Shearer]

As i feared where one company starts others will follow.

 

THQ will introduce this for their next UFC game - although this may only be in the US.

Sony are thinking/planning on doing this for their recently released racing game - Modnation.

 

The sad thing is that people will actually pay for multiplayer online rather than take a stance against it.

[Johnny Shearer]

Thought I'd bring this up as online passes were the beginning as now we have in game microtransactions happening.

 

This is the case of the new Dead Space (although its not neccessary).

 

Personally I think this would be the last straw for me and keep the 360. I'm not a fan of games where it costs little but then you pay a lot through out the game. This is especially the case in mobile games. Real racing anyone??

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Thought I'd bring this up as online passes were the beginning as now we have in game microtransactions happening.

 

This is the case of the new Dead Space (although its not neccessary).

 

Personally I think this would be the last straw for me and keep the 360. I'm not a fan of games where it costs little but then you pay a lot through out the game. This is especially the case in mobile games. Real racing anyone??

 

You aren't alone.

 

I work for a games company that uses the 'freemium' model. The amount of people we get moaning about it is ridiculous.

 

Luckily, the number of people that aren't so bothered far outweighs them, and enough people pay to keep me in work

[JPTCount]

You aren't alone.

 

I work for a games company that uses the 'freemium' model. The amount of people we get moaning about it is ridiculous.

 

Luckily, the number of people that aren't so bothered far outweighs them, and enough people pay to keep me in work

 

yes but its dependent on the nature of it imo, i have lemmings free on my phone with one tier of levels, for the next set of levels i have to pay something minimal like 70p, and maybe a total of 5-6 quid, and i quite like the way DC universe is staggered for pricing. but ive seen free games on android that actually cost over £100 to get the full potential of the game, to unlock everything. and they are **** games lol

[KelvinsRightGlove]

yes but its dependent on the nature of it imo, i have lemmings free on my phone with one tier of levels, for the next set of levels i have to pay something minimal like 70p, and maybe a total of 5-6 quid, and i quite like the way DC universe is staggered for pricing. but ive seen free games on android that actually cost over £100 to get the full potential of the game, to unlock everything. and they are **** games lol

 

Haha yeah, I think like most things, it's about balance.

 

I guess we have got ours just right, seeing as one of our games is amongst the most played and highest grossing in the world at the moment.

 

With ours you are given options (for example, when you reach a stage where you are asked to pay to unlock the next set of levels, you can alternatively invite friends on Facebook to help you).

 

In fact with our games, it is always possibly to complete games (which can be over 300 levels) without paying a single penny. Most who do complete, actually do so without paying.

 

So basically, it's about balance.

[Johnny Shearer]

Haha yeah, I think like most things, it's about balance.

 

I guess we have got ours just right, seeing as one of our games is amongst the most played and highest grossing in the world at the moment.

 

With ours you are given options (for example, when you reach a stage where you are asked to pay to unlock the next set of levels, you can alternatively invite friends on Facebook to help you).

 

In fact with our games, it is always possibly to complete games (which can be over 300 levels) without paying a single penny. Most who do complete, actually do so without paying.

 

So basically, it's about balance.

 

I don't have a problem with games that let you complete them without paying but the option is there however there are some which make it very difficult or mind numbingly boring doing so the normal way.

 

Thats why I mentioned Real Racing!

 

Other examples are Capcom's Street Fighter X Tekken where the DLC was already on the game disc (as the game was hacked by some clever folks) but Capcom still classed it as DLC and charged for it. In this instance I didn't buy the game until it was available at a knock down price but have decided not to buy the DLC out of choice.

 

I guess the sad thing is that the model must work successfully enough for companies to continue to do this.