EA to block 2nd hand gamers from online play

[DJ-Daz]

There's no source for this, so I dont know for sure where it came from...
[link2]TSA Website,http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2010/05/16/ ... ent-188818[/link2]
But EA are trying very hard to stop the second hand market gamers from playing online. Why? Because they have'nt payed for access by buying the game new.
Thats one reason why we have vouchers inside the game case, so we can have access to the DLC, but it seems that code will also give you access to the online servers too. Take that away and you have a pretty useless game, (Battlefield is afterall an online game first and foremost), and how long before you're locked out of the single player too?
So it's now becoming clear why there are no PS3 and Xbox servers to rent, if there were rented servers you could probably play on them and EA could'nt argue that you haven't payed for it, afterall, you could have rented that server yourself.
But is it a good idea to alienate ALL the second hand players in one go?

What about the person that bought the game brand new, they've paid for the server access, and passed on those rights to play online to the next person. Imagine if person 1 only had the game 2 months, and person 2 has it for 12 months or more, is it fair to make person 2 pay to play online or lock them out completely?

There is no other second hand market that is so vehemently opposed as the gaming market. Cars, clothing, video, electronics etc. All work fine without manufacturer's getting a second bite of the cherry, and they are often much more expensive than 1 game. If it less than 12 months old, the warranty tranfers with the object, and does not stay with the person that originally purchased it. So why is this so painful for game devsto accept?

If it's so painful for EA to accept the second hand market, and they want to control people's purchases (which might be against the law, it creates a monopoly) then why not just offer server rentals, and keep the exclusive DLC in their domain?

[Symonator]

You have to understand the 2nd hand game market.

1. When you get a 2nd hand game, you cost the publisher money
2. You become GAME, GAMESTOP, GAMESTATION's customer not EA's
3. They offer you free online play and get hardly any return from 2nd hand games.

This is why you are seeing more and more digital DLC and games from online stores.

It's been looming for along time and i support the cause personally, but.. if they start to increase game prices, this is when i wouldn't support it.

End of the day, publisher EA loses millions of pounds because of 2nd hand market.
I don't blame them for trying to sort it out.

There will be a 7 day trial period for rentals, so rentals will probably be affected at some point.

[DJ-Daz]

You have to understand the 2nd hand game market.

1. When you get a 2nd hand game, you cost the publisher money

You dont cost the publisher money, unless you deliberately, conciously refused to buy it brand new.

2. You become GAME, GAMESTOP, GAMESTATION's customer not EA's

True

3. They offer you free online play and get hardly any return from 2nd hand games.

But that is THEIR decision, if they made the game work off RENTED servers or peer too peer it would'nt be a problem.

This is why you are seeing more and more digital DLC and games from online stores.

I dont mind paying for DLC especially if it ADDS to the game and not just the publishers bank balance. LBP and eyepet offer huge amounts of DLC but its of little substance.

It's been looming for along time and i support the cause personally, but.. if they start to increase game prices, this is when i wouldn't support it.

But you do part exchange games? So aren't you part of the problem?
What about people like me (and now that there are a lot more people like me thanks to the recession) who cannot afford many brand new titles. But as soon as everyone is FORCED to buy brand new, prices WILL INCREASE. Some publishers look at Activision with enormous envy, yet keep quiet publicy. There will be a line that once it's crossed, there will never be any going back.

End of the day, publisher EA loses millions of pounds because of 2nd hand market.
I don't blame them for trying to sort it out.

They're not loosing millions, it's just an untapped market that they want to control. It's exactly the same as the music and movie industry wanting to keep out pirates, once control (piracy or second hand market) is established, they will be able to dictate terms completely in their favour.

That is all this is about, control the market control the money.
What if all the shops were forced to kickback .50p or £1.00 to publishers for every second hand game sold? Would that make them happier? Probably not, not until they have complete dominance over all the markets.

But what about the small indipendents who sell small numbers of new games but large numbers of second hand games, that would effectively lead to closures and job losses. Game and blockbuster's are already struggling and this might just finish them off, Asda, Sainsbury's and Tesco want to enter the second hand market, and I'm pretty sure as night follows day that they'd have something to say about it too, and seeing as they ship a lot of brand new products, they could effectively just tell the publishers to begger off, were not selling this title as it has no second hand value. Or they will sell at the RRP of £50-£70 without ANY discount.

Then there's the argument that the second hand market fuels the brand new market.
Example:
Joe Bloggs buys 2 brand new games every month, completes them, and returns 2 used games and gets another brand new game. Thus getting 3 per month, and not 2.
This actually helps the publishers? Yes? No?

Love it or hate it, there is a need and a pretty fucking large market for used games, and all the industry wants is more money.
Some publishers might need the money to stay afload, others might need it to have a better bank balance. But the ones who need it to keep going, are probably spending too much, and not making AAA products anyway.

[Symonator]

daz you need to watch this:
http://kotaku.com/5436703/onlive-boss-g ... esentation

the guy explains all the 2nd hand market and how it cripples publishers.

[redVENGEANCE]

on a separate note these publishers could double their money if they made decent brand new map packs, i would happily pay £20 for 10 new maps, not rehashes or sp made mp, brand new maps, i don't care for the free stuff we get from dice its all from the sp game anyways, lets have decent new stuff, people will pay for this

[DJ-Daz]

daz you need to watch this:
http://kotaku.com/5436703/onlive-boss-g ... esentation

the guy explains all the 2nd hand market and how it cripples publishers.

For anyone who is interested time remaining 18:30 is where he talks about the used game market.
All he says is the same that has already been said. But obviously he's selling HIS company so those projections (and thats all they are) show that used games take up $12 out of a $60 game.
But thats also assuming that game will be resold, some titles are worth keeping for several years.

So this discussion is just going around in circles... so why not try to see logical ways out of the problem. Seddon thinks quality DLC at a fair price will work. Monthly map packs or even better a subscription to buy DLC? Say £5 per month. But you keep the maps if you cancel.
I think server rentals will also help, and it puts control back into the hands of the public, ok so Multiplay will get the contract for EA, but EA still get the benefit of not having to pay for servers and making a little extra on rental.

I dont like the idea that EA have come up with. I see it as a way to gain extra capital, and control a market even further, and add more cost to the gamer.

What are the positives?
Well more money to develop more games? Possibly yes, but only if the money is used that way.
Better products?
More content? More free content?

[chrisdfa1]

a bit off topic but.....DAZ GET BC2 AGAIN!!!!! PLZ

[theENIGMATRON]

There is a fair point to it,

Its up and Down,

But if i make some software and sell 10 copy's for £10 each,
but 40 people have had a go of it, from reselling
then i only see £100 of it, then making me stop any further development as the return it POOP, instead of the £400 i should of seen

But then again Second Hand games is away of testing the game.... for me anyway,

There should be a simple solution,

Once they game has been used, the CD Key is tied to that account,
If you wish to play the game online on ANOTHER Account (I.e. game has been resold)
There should be a small fee to get you back online
Like £5 for an example

Thats a quick £5 for using there service, no cost in packaging or making or anything!!

there is the ups and downs to it all.

For the question on Rental, Well i would guess there would be a Band of CD Keys that are allowed to be re-used a number of times on multiple accounts.

[DJ-Daz]

In one way I can see what EA are attempting to do is prevent piracy as well as get a second bite of the 2nd hand market.

Piracy is a major problem on the 360, some people will buy a game, copy it, sell it on. But it's value drops like a stone when you cant play online or get DLC without a code.
But we all buy used games at some point, as some just aren't worth the initial outlay. I've just traded in a shit load of mine for Call of Juarez and Heavy Rain. Both are very good, but neither is worth £40 at least not to me. Thats 2 games I could not afford to buy otherwise. When I'm done with these, I'll trade them again, and with the money left over I might get modnation brand new, or split second. So in one respect I'm not helping the publishers in another I am.

This discussion is proving that the used games market is a double edged sword. But there must be an alternative to blocking access to online play completely. After all, its this kind of action that will make the most amount of money back to the publisher, and thats what make me angry. Because all I then see is a greedy publisher.

OK, so I'm out of work, I bought BFBC2 brand new, but suppose I did'nt buy it because I was'nt sure about it, what are my alternatives to try before you buy?
Rental? That could add another £6.00 to the purchase price, or let a friend buy it and play it at their house first, maybe. But what ever happens I'd certainly buy less games, and only buy the games that I absolutely knew were good, and knew that I wanted to keep, and there are'nt many of them. Fuck it, EA might have just saved me some money.

[DJ-Daz]

So what about this for an argument:
BFBC1 had a LOT of newbies after the 3rd month or so. Infact I'd say most of the players in the last 12 months were newbs. Sure there were some skilled and time served players, but the majority did'nt have a clue because they had only just bought the game. How many times did we play ascension and completed the entire map in 5 minutes or less? All because the other team were clueless newbs? How many times did I spam sensors because no-one had even thought of it or knew the tactic?
Or running a tank up the right hand side banking in Harvest Day, taking the first 4 crates in just 2 minutes.
Now imagine if all the newbs were taken away (no used game market to buy their copies) ... the servers would be nearly empty and the game would have died.

[theENIGMATRON]

LOL

you know Piracy has a smaller margin that 2nd hand games,

I dont think piracy totals a full 5% i think its only like 3.7 or 4.7 or something

[DJ-Daz]

LOL

you know Piracy has a smaller margin that 2nd hand games,

I dont think piracy totals a full 5% i think its only like 3.7 or 4.7 or something

According Steve Perlman from onlive (watch the video Sy posted) it's $12 for every $60 game. Or one 5th.
Or zero if you count the PS3.

[DJ-Daz]

So infinite what do you have to say? You've been batting for the other side, and now you're in my shoes... well not quite, but your perspective is very unique.

[InfiniteStates]

It's a tricky question, and some great arguments in this thread both for and against...

To be fair to publishers, game prices haven't changed a lot in a long time, while the cost of development goes up and up. As gamers demand more detail and the hardware is capable of delivering, it requires more man hours to put that into a game while not earning any more money for the publisher. This is probably why we're seeing a massive downturn in the length of offline modes.

But at the same time, publishers are driven by the incessant need to expand and get bigger and bigger. Especially where shareholders are involved. Each year they want to make a bigger profit than last year. Now if they achieved this by producing more and better products, it would be fair enough. But the market is unpredictable - you can make a great game and it sinks without trace, or you can make a turkey with a popular franchise attached to it and it will sell millions. So they have to turn to more "certain" ways of increasing revenue.

As a consumer, punishing 2nd hand purchases has never really bothered me as I buy the majority of my games new and full price. Although lately I've been buying stuff I wanted to play but never got around to from supermarkets at a later date brand new for second hand prices. And they're not games I'm expecting to still have thriving online communities.

I don't think the online aspect is a good one for publishers to target to deal with their problem. If you look at the prices of newish (i.e. when there's still an interest online) games 2nd hand, they're only a couple of quid cheaper than buying it new. Very few games maintain an online community for that long, and the price of most games get reduced for a new copy relatively quickly.

I don't know what the answer is, to be honest. But I think publishers would be better off looking internally for ways to streamline and make savings, instead of hammering the consumer. DLC is certainly a valid option at this stage, but it will go the same way as everything else: they will over-spam it with a load of shit which means the quality stuff will get ignored and the whole thing will become pointless. It's only viable at the moment because it's fairly new and we're not sick of it yet.

Another option would be for publisher to internalise development more. We've already gone from around 400 independent developers in 2000 to around 150 now, so why not finish nailing the coffin? They could then re-use engines and tools over and over without paying for re-development of the same thing. Many games are built of the same core engines any way. That's why Renderware and Unreal do ok, and there are lots of different games built off the same core tech.

They could also stop being so fucking greedy and promising shareholders more and more each year.

[DJ-Daz]

It's a tricky question, and some great arguments in this thread both for and against...

To be fair to publishers, game prices haven't changed a lot in a long time, while the cost of development goes up and up. As gamers demand more detail and the hardware is capable of delivering, it requires more man hours to put that into a game while not earning any more money for the publisher. This is probably why we're seeing a massive downturn in the length of offline modes.

But at the same time, publishers are driven by the incessant need to expand and get bigger and bigger. Especially where shareholders are involved. Each year they want to make a bigger profit than last year. Now if they achieved this by producing more and better products, it would be fair enough. But the market is unpredictable - you can make a great game and it sinks without trace, or you can make a turkey with a popular franchise attached to it and it will sell millions. So they have to turn to more "certain" ways of increasing revenue.

Agreed... But... The console market is growing, the PC market is dying (or certainly not as big as it was thanks to piracy) and thanks to the PS3's very hard to crack system, there is no piracy, so profits can only increase - but only in stable economies, in a recession all the rules go out the window.
I speak from a PS3 users point of view, I cant speak for the 360 market, but nearly everyone I know with a 360 uses it for "free" gaming. So maybe developers need to drop the systems that are rife with piracy and work on secure systems only? This would help cut back on development costs for ever decreasing profits on unsecure systems. It might also lead to massive job losses, it might be temporary job losses once the industry catches up again. It might even lead to a resurgence in console gaming.
It would certainly teach MS a lesson, and help Sony no end.

But I'm not in favour of job cuts to keep the prices down whichever road you travel.

I definately dont think Onlive will do the trick, and it will piss off Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft no end. TBH, it'll probably be bought out by one of the big three just to shut it down. Also the internet just is'nt ready for high bit rate HD video with a ping of 80ms or less. Imagine playing BFBC2 and having packet loss and dying a lot more than usual, would you keep playing then? I doubt it.


It's definately a tough one with no easy solution, and alienating customers is one step forward two steps back. Maybe coming to an agreement with the stores themselves for a small kickback is the most logical step? But I can see a problem with that too, make a poor game, and your used profits will soar, imagine a crap game being echanged 5 times for a £2 kickback, but a good game get exchanged once or twice. I suppose thought that a good game will sell well initially though.

So one last point/argument...
If I buy a game brand new, and play it for a month, part of the sale cost goes to the publisher and developer, who then pays for the server rental for me. Lets say 12 months server rental, but the person who buys the used game has to pay £10 for server rental before they can play online. But wait, my initial purchase has already covered those costs for one year, why should the second person pay those costs again?