Battlefield 3, Mass Effect 3 MP Will Require Online Pass

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

ikefu

Distinguished
Aug 11, 2009
251
0
18,780
0
The hard part is differentiating between the people who would have bought new if used wasn't an option and those who wouldn't have bought at all if used wasn't an option.

For the first case, its a total rip off for the publisher and those who actually make the games we love. For the second, its a total ripoff to the customer to charge more. So how do you differentiate the two? Not sure there is a good answer.
 

nrgx

Distinguished
Oct 9, 2009
23
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]iamsleepy[/nom]I don't see why the people who are raging specifically at EA have a problem with this since Steam does the exact same thing. You have game on Steam? Want to give it to a friend? Sorry, Steam won't let you. Only choice is to give them your account. If you're going to be hating on companies trying to destroy the second hand market, at the very least do it to all of them.[/citation]
I rage at EA because they seem to require people to create an account just to get support for the product they purchased. By the way, in order to create an account you are REQUIRED to give personal information, SUCH AS YOUR BIRTHDATE! So, I believe that EA sucks because they require me to give my BIRTHDATE just to get technical support. And another "by the way", the only reason I needed technical support was because their anti-piracy software was trying to install something which was being blocked by Windows 7! So, if I PIRATED the game I wouldn't even have needed technical support because the anti-piracy nonsense would have been cracked and therefore would not have been installed!

So, I rage against EA! F*** EA! EA can kiss my A**! Give me back the $50 I paid for a game that I can't play because of EA's BS anti-piracy crap!
 

nrgx

Distinguished
Oct 9, 2009
23
0
18,510
0


And if we were allowed to play over LAN on our own servers without using their "service" we wouldn't need said "service", would we? They decided to force everyone to use their "service" and now they are using their "service" as an excuse to charge people more money.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]airborne11b[/nom]All your points are invalid. Oh the horror! of having to wait at a loading screen for 10-15 seconds every few matches. lolYour advocating a Steam monopoly, which is bad no matter how you look at it. Origin worked 100% just as well as steam, even during the beta. The only thing that was a bit buggy was battlelog, which I'm sure they're going to have in near perfect working order by launch.You gripe about cost, but nothing says that you can't wait a few months till the game goes on sale and buy a new game at a discounted price. Also, no one said how much the online pass would cost. Might just be a few bucks, so you're getting way ahead of yourself, and this is a much better alternative then charging a monthly subscription to maintain servers.I don't understand people's frustrations because they're all ridiculous and unwarranted. Like a bunch of children who want everything for free in life. Tough shit. Get over it.[/citation]

actually it was closer to 2 minutes per launch, and due to beta, had to exit and re enter allot.

origin was a nightmare, at least for me, and was freestanding that i had to use it at all considering the game doesn't even launch from it. and a "steam monopoly" no, im sorry, but steam is one of MANY choices, however ea wants to make dlc sales in game, which is hit and miss from what i hear, instead of going into steam and buying it that way, and thats the only reason the game isn't on steam. there is plenty of competition, however i use steam by choice.

online pass like deal for other games has ranged from i believe 8$ up to 20$, but in all honest ANY extra cost is asinine, and pure greed, also have you looked at any games that are 2-3 years old, that don't have a squeal? some are still in the 40$ range new... which i think is FAR to much for an older game. and with ea, you know for a fact you will get screwed on the price till no one is buying it anymore, im sensearly doubting any kind of deal for at least a year.

and we dont want it for free.
apple marks up a phone 400$ at minimum, from base cost
we get intrusive drm, borderlineing on spyware with origin,
we constantly cant sell a game for anything because of the online pass and dlc unlock codes only given to new games.
in all honesty, people are sick of this crap. its not complaing about wanting things for free, its about not wanting to be screwed because we want something
 

invlem

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2008
580
0
18,980
0
People keep saying there's no difference if a game gets re-sold, that the developer isn't affected, that it doesn't make a difference to their service.

There is one BIG difference, they have to continue to maintain that service, maintenance costs money, insane amounts of money.

1. So you have a person who buys a game:
-Game company nets $15 profit
-Retailer nets $15 profit
-Game company incurs costs to support the game & servers

2. 2 months later, the person gets bored, trades it in.

3. New person buys that copy.
-Game company nets $0 profit
-Retailer nets an additional $30 profit
-Game company incurs costs to support the game & servers

4. 2 months later, new person gets bored, trades it in.

5. A New new person buys that copy.
-Game company nets $0 profit
-Retailer nets an additional $20 profit (its 4 months old now)
-Game company incurs costs to support the game & servers

6. 2 months later, new person gets bored, trades it in.

7. A New new NEW person buys that copy.
-Game company nets $0 profit
-Retailer nets an additional $10 profit (its 6 months old now)
-Game company incurs costs to support the game & servers

So 6 months down the road...
Developer nets $15, still has to spend money to support the services.
Retailer nets $15+30+20+10 = $75 (and I'm depreciating this game very rapidly, most games 6 months old still sell used for $45)

Summary:
Developer sells 1 copy, has to support it, costs money to support it.
Retailer sells the same copy 4 times, doesn't have to support anything.

Net result - Developer only makes money if its sold new, therefore developer is going to push new sales or make new sales more enticing.

I'll support the developer, at least I know my money will support further game development, if they don't get the money, who's going to make the game? Game Stop? I think not!
 
G

Guest

Guest
@invlem
What you say sounds right theoretically, but in reality, the person who is buying the game used is most likely someone who refuses to pay full price to begin with. This means that they are only buying it because they have the option of a lower price. If they don't have that option, then it's not worth it to them to buy it at all. So in the end, EA still gets nothing. The only difference with this is that now the used buyer gets nothing as well. It's a lose-lose situation made out of a lose-win. Or in simpler terms, it's just EA being an immature douche like always. "If I can't win, then neither can you."
 

nikorr

Champion
Moderator
[citation][nom]dane332[/nom]The difference is that the second person's money did not go to EA , Bioware, and anyone else related to production and distribution of the game.The only person who benefits would be the guy who sold the game used, or gamestop.[/citation]
I agree ...
 
G

Guest

Guest
I for one am pleased. With all the royalty-milking and revenue-eating going on on consoles, PC gaming should pick up steam :)
 

happyballz

Distinguished
Mar 15, 2011
269
0
18,780
0
Crappy idea... I want to have resale value if I don't own my copy of the game then paying $60 for an extended rental is no go for me. Precisely of this I do not care for Origin or Valve systems.
Overall its their business how they sell it or present it but they will not get any money from me as long as I have to worry about my game depending on some centralized gimmick software that may not exist 2 year down the line.
Let me get my own ability to host servers and all they need is a master-list server to simply show and publish other peoples' server addresses (server list) which does not need super computers to host.
I would donate to BioWare directly but since BioWare sold themselves to the devil and EA owns them I really could care less.
 

husker

Distinguished
Oct 2, 2009
921
8
18,985
0
For people who are complaining about paying full price for a product they get full use out of:
A used game is not like other used merchandise that gets damaged or worn out. A game is just as good (if not better!) after time. So people who are buying used games are just trying to enter the market at a discount and get to play along side people who paid full price. If this was allowed to continue, why would people buy the game at full price? Smart gamers would just wait and buy it used, thereby lowering the total initial sales of a product. If each purchased game was resold just once the total profit from sales would be cut in half. Game companies take a huge financial risk in spending the tens of millions of dollars to develop a game, and the investors need some kind of assurance that they will actually see a profit. Don't like it? Fine, go play Angry Birds for free and leave us real gamers alone.
 

nrgx

Distinguished
Oct 9, 2009
23
0
18,510
0

You make a good point about how a game does not get damaged or worn out. However, I think your argument about "Smart gamers woud just wait and buy it used" is fundamentally flawed. I think that the vast majority of American consumers are impatient and want what they want immediately and do not want to wait. I think that there are at least two key pieces of evidence which support my claim: 1) the massive amount of credit card balances that the average American consumer carries (they want it now, so they borrow the money to get it now instead of waiting for when they can actually afford it), and 2) the fact that very few American consumers actually read the EULA, TOS, Privacy Policies, etc... before they click on the "Accept" button (they want to play the game now, they don't want to read pages and pages of text which explains how the company they are buying the game from is going to screw them over, or how Steam or Origin is going to screw them over).

I am an American consumer, but I pay off my credit card balance every month and I actually read the EULA, TOS, Privacy Policies, etc... Unfortunately I am still affected by the dumb-ass majority of American consumers because the corporations put outrageous terms and conditions in their TOS etc... just because they know that the vast majority of American consumers will blindly accept whatever they put in the TOS etc.

I think that the majority of gamers who can afford to play a game as soon as it comes out buy the game and play it, and if they game is good enough the majority of the gamers keep the game because they still want to play it. As time passes the cost of a new game drops because it is older, and if the game is still fun to the early adopters then there wouldn't be very many used copies available which would force the late adopters to buy the game new rather than used. So, once again, the burden is on the game developer to create a game which is fun to play and doesn't get boring to play in a short amount of time. But, the game developers are typically corporations and want to maximize their profit, so they want to skimp on development but still rake in all the cash they would have gotten if they didn't skimp on development, which is why you are seeing these changes in the industry.
 

nrgx

Distinguished
Oct 9, 2009
23
0
18,510
0

The obvious answer is "because game companies are not the government".
 

deicidechaos

Distinguished
Aug 11, 2011
75
0
18,640
1
The developers and publisher are just slapping us\gamers in the face and taking advantage of the user at any given chance. But people are still going to rush out and buy them cause they dont want to miss out, even if they have to sign a contract and give-a-limb.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Haven't bought a used game in all my 30 years of gaming so I could care less and I keep every single PC game I purchase.

Not trying to start anything but I will say that you kids need to read the USer agreement you put the check next to when you install your game. They have every right to do what they want with there property. Its there property, you pay to use it, you DONT own it.




 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]invlem[/nom]People keep saying there's no difference if a game gets re-sold, that the developer isn't affected, that it doesn't make a difference to their service.There is one BIG difference, they have to continue to maintain that service, maintenance costs money, insane amounts of money.1. So you have a person who buys a game: -Game company nets $15 profit-Retailer nets $15 profit-Game company incurs costs to support the game & servers2. 2 months later, the person gets bored, trades it in.3. New person buys that copy.-Game company nets $0 profit-Retailer nets an additional $30 profit-Game company incurs costs to support the game & servers4. 2 months later, new person gets bored, trades it in.5. A New new person buys that copy.-Game company nets $0 profit-Retailer nets an additional $20 profit (its 4 months old now)-Game company incurs costs to support the game & servers6. 2 months later, new person gets bored, trades it in.7. A New new NEW person buys that copy.-Game company nets $0 profit-Retailer nets an additional $10 profit (its 6 months old now)-Game company incurs costs to support the game & serversSo 6 months down the road...Developer nets $15, still has to spend money to support the services.Retailer nets $15+30+20+10 = $75 (and I'm depreciating this game very rapidly, most games 6 months old still sell used for $45)Summary:Developer sells 1 copy, has to support it, costs money to support it.Retailer sells the same copy 4 times, doesn't have to support anything.Net result - Developer only makes money if its sold new, therefore developer is going to push new sales or make new sales more enticing.I'll support the developer, at least I know my money will support further game development, if they don't get the money, who's going to make the game? Game Stop? I think not![/citation]

a server for lets say 32 players is a 20$ month upkeep cost, about 62 cents per gamer.

pin up an advertisement on the loading screen for multiplayer, and you have at least 32 people per match looking at it, and with a volume of 1000 per sale unit, and at minimum 3$ per unit, it would be 3 sale units per day on the server, giving the server 9$ a day going to a monthly upkeep of 20$

or better yet... LET US RUN OUR OWN SERVERS, the players will be more than willing to run their own servers, pay for them, and play on them.

sever costs are MINUSCULE IN THE LONG RUN. and its the publishers that push the servers, not the devs i believe, at least looking at how blacklight tango down went.

and also, SERVERS ARE CALCULATED INTO THE GAMES EXPENSES FROM THE START. you see that box with the game inside of it, they already ran the numbers of how long you will likely play that game online, and figured part of the profit to the per game sales that would go to keeping an official server up.
 

shrapnel_indie

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2010
2,152
10
20,465
277
It's true, resales don't add money to the publishers sales figures.

SOME prefer to buy their games used because of the quality of games on the market, and STILL want a legit copy. Thus a week (Gamestop) to tell if the game blows chunks is a boon as no big rush to play immediately and no pressure if life gets in the way. Some others only offer 24hrs for you to figure it out. NEW sales offer no such refuge because YOU MIGHT HAVE COPIED THE DISK(S) before returning said title (YOU THIEF!) You want to buy a game that blows chunks? If you did, wouldn't you want to get as much back out of it as you could by reselling it if possible? OR... would you just say "That game blew chunks, oh well, I'm out $50-60."

Steam, at least offers sales on games, at drastic price cuts, to users.... This cushions the blow if the game blows chunks or you get tired of it or beat it within a very short period of time.

Due to shelf space, and in some cases age, SOME titles are relinquished to the used market if you want any type of legit copy.

People will see the extra cost of playing on-line as a liability compared to how "new" copies get it for free. Thus, the resale value, in their eyes had better reflect that difference. Resale stores aren't just going to eat the difference. They're either going to toss in a new code with every resale, or be forced to lower the resale price. Either way, trade-in value goes down, and less feel inclined to trade it in on the latest and greatest title out next month... First-sales feel damage whenever the effected title is involved. It will bite them in the long-run unless they convince us "sheeple" that this is for the better. Sheeple will fall for anything, and follow the "leaders" without question. Are you a sheeple?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY