EA's Online Pass or Used Game Premium

[BreakABone]

Now this is something EA started with Mass Effect 2, and I thought it would be like an one-off experience, but they seem to be expanding on this idea.

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/...e-multiplayer/

EA has tested the waters of in-box downloadable content codes with its new releases, with its 'Project Ten Dollar' initiative offering the likes of unlockable nudity in The Saboteur and the Cerberus Network in Mass Effect 2 for free with new purchases and for $10 to customers without the DLC code. In what may be the biggest (and riskiest) application of that philosophy yet, EA Sports has announced that all new copies of its simulation sports games on the PS3 and Xbox 360 will come with the "Online Pass," an in-box code that grants full online gameplay and bonus content to customers who choose to redeem the code. Customers who own copies of the game with a redeemed Online Pass will have to pay $10 for a digital version. 7-day trial versions of the Online Pass will also be available for customers unsure about whether they want to access online content in their sports games.

Personally I feel that handicapping the used game market sucks for gamers who can't afford full-price, but I also understand why a company would want to force people to buy a game new.

So what are your thoughts?

[Carnage17]

actually Dragon Age: Origins started it, followed by The Saboteur... ME2 was the third game to do it lol. But even Gears of War 2 did basically the same thing in 2008.

As you know, I think this is great for the pubs/devs you get completely screwed by the used game market and, more importantly, PIRACY. It's been a well-publicized problem, and the people who work on these games deserve compensation.

The DLC offerings are completely optional, and in the case of the new direction EA Sports is taking with it, they still give you a week-long trial before you have to decide. $10 is a more than reasonable price to ask, because people who need to have to pay the $10 are people who did not pay up to the original publisher/developer to play the game (remember, new copies get this stuff for free!).

Also, the argument that it hurts the budget-minded consumer isn't that strong. I am very, very poor, and have to adjust my gaming purchases accordingly. I almost never buy a $60 game, and when I do I plan months in advance to be able to save up for it (see: MW2, Mass Effect 2). People can just as easily wait about 3 months after release, at which point the price for most new games already drop to the 40-45 dollar range. And if you are savvy enough to score a used copy at a much better bargain, throwing on an extra $10 is not at all much to ask, especially if it still results in a cheaper price than a new copy. If it doesn't, then buy it new. Or just skip out on the optional content anyway.

If anything this will drive the price of used games down further since they will now be "incomplete" experience. But I think the more important point here is in regards to piracy, where now the pubs/devs can at least scrape SOME well-earned dough for their years of hard work.

[BreakABone]

Actually, you bring up another issue that has been created this generation.

The price collapse model. In which, people see a game, and know they don't need to buy it week one because in 2-3 months it will be dirt cheap, but its dirt cheap because no one bought it early because knew would become cheap.

Of course the problem with that, is much like used games, developers/publishers lose money and they potentially lose the chance to expand their created universe with sequels and the likes.

As for the main point, I agree with you, developers/publishers should be given a cut of the used game market (especially with some of the prices GameStop sales them for), but I don't think putting a premium on it is the best way to go.

We shall see how it goes, since in the case of ME 2 and I believe Dragon Age, is even when you pay this premium you are still paying for DLC on top of that as well.

[Combine 017]

I could care less cause EA sucks, but are they saying that I would have to pay $10 to play a game online on top of Xbox Live which I pay for to play games online?

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Combine 017

I could care less cause EA sucks, but are they saying that I would have to pay $10 to play a game online on top of Xbox Live which I pay for to play games online?

No, you own Mass Effect 2, its the Cerebrus Network for other games.

When you bought it new, you got a code which you used to activate your account, basically if you buy the game used and want that content, you had to pay 15 bucks to gain access to it.

[Combine 017]

"Online Pass," an in-box code that grants full online gameplay and bonus content to customers

Kind of sounds like its making you pay for online gaming.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Carnage17

actually Dragon Age: Origins started it, followed by The Saboteur... ME2 was the third game to do it lol. But even Gears of War 2 did basically the same thing in 2008.

As you know, I think this is great for the pubs/devs you get completely screwed by the used game market and, more importantly, PIRACY. It's been a well-publicized problem, and the people who work on these games deserve compensation.

The DLC offerings are completely optional, and in the case of the new direction EA Sports is taking with it, they still give you a week-long trial before you have to decide. $10 is a more than reasonable price to ask, because people who need to have to pay the $10 are people who did not pay up to the original publisher/developer to play the game (remember, new copies get this stuff for free!).

Also, the argument that it hurts the budget-minded consumer isn't that strong. I am very, very poor, and have to adjust my gaming purchases accordingly. I almost never buy a $60 game, and when I do I plan months in advance to be able to save up for it (see: MW2, Mass Effect 2). People can just as easily wait about 3 months after release, at which point the price for most new games already drop to the 40-45 dollar range. And if you are savvy enough to score a used copy at a much better bargain, throwing on an extra $10 is not at all much to ask, especially if it still results in a cheaper price than a new copy. If it doesn't, then buy it new. Or just skip out on the optional content anyway.

If anything this will drive the price of used games down further since they will now be "incomplete" experience. But I think the more important point here is in regards to piracy, where now the pubs/devs can at least scrape SOME well-earned dough for their years of hard work.

I think you are overly-optimistic about how this will combat piracy.

For me, I think this is fuel for the DLC fire in some ways, and I loooooooooove DLC. I could go on for hours, but another thread, another day....

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

Actually, you bring up another issue that has been created this generation.

The price collapse model. In which, people see a game, and know they don't need to buy it week one because in 2-3 months it will be dirt cheap, but its dirt cheap because no one bought it early because knew would become cheap.

Of course the problem with that, is much like used games, developers/publishers lose money and they potentially lose the chance to expand their created universe with sequels and the likes.

As for the main point, I agree with you, developers/publishers should be given a cut of the used game market (especially with some of the prices GameStop sales them for), but I don't think putting a premium on it is the best way to go.

We shall see how it goes, since in the case of ME 2 and I believe Dragon Age, is even when you pay this premium you are still paying for DLC on top of that as well.

Price collapse model? There is a theory to this insanity? The real problem is that games are way too much money out the gate and there are way too many games. The reality is developers need to either make less games so that people can afford them and have time to play them lol, but that will cost them money; or they can keep making tons of games and LOWER THE PRICES. This is exacerbated by this 3-console + PC gaming market where you often need to buy the hit games across 4 platforms. Total, insane, expensive, craziness.

EA is walking a fine line between really unethical and shady, but that will bleed into a DLC discussion I refuse to have.

[Carnage17]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

I think you are overly-optimistic about how this will combat piracy.

For me, I think this is fuel for the DLC fire in some ways, and I loooooooooove DLC. I could go on for hours, but another thread, another day....

not that it combats piracy in the sense that it stops it, but in the sense that game makers can still make some money off pirated copies... along the same lines as DLC, but more integrated, in a sense

[Carnage17]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

Price collapse model? There is a theory to this insanity? The real problem is that games are way too much money out the gate and there are way too many games. The reality is developers need to either make less games so that people can afford them and have time to play them lol, but that will cost them money; or they can keep making tons of games and LOWER THE PRICES. This is exacerbated by this 3-console + PC gaming market where you often need to buy the hit games across 4 platforms. Total, insane, expensive, craziness.

EA is walking a fine line between really unethical and shady, but that will bleed into a DLC discussion I refuse to have.

i agree with people not having enough time to play them but how about an alternate model altogether: make games shorter, cheaper, and by extension cheaper and shorter to make... this is also smaller risk on the part of publishers.

look at it this way: the average game takes about 12 hours to complete (lets say). It equates much more to a TV season than a movie, in terms of time invested to complete the experience. However, individual TV episodes can be consumed on their own without investing in the whole season.

This may sound like the much-talked about "episodic" model of game design, and yes it is similar, but im talking less segmented than that. or, maybe just the way valve does "episodes" (lol)

[Combine 017]

Originally Posted by Carnage17

i agree with people not having enough time to play them but how about an alternate model altogether: make games shorter, cheaper, and by extension cheaper and shorter to make... this is also smaller risk on the part of publishers.

I think Nintendo is already doing something like that... turns out they make a lot of crappy games.

This may sound like the much-talked about "episodic" model of game design, and yes it is similar, but im talking less segmented than that. or, maybe just the way valve does "episodes" (lol)

Hey, nothing wrong with the way Valve does episodes. They just take a really long time is all.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

Price collapse model? There is a theory to this insanity? The real problem is that games are way too much money out the gate and there are way too many games. The reality is developers need to either make less games so that people can afford them and have time to play them lol, but that will cost them money; or they can keep making tons of games and LOWER THE PRICES. This is exacerbated by this 3-console + PC gaming market where you often need to buy the hit games across 4 platforms. Total, insane, expensive, craziness.

Oh I completely agree that the game industry needs a more flexible pricing scheme.

There are games (VERY few I should state) that I think are worth the $60 admission fee and then there are games in which I think they have a much better chance of selling if they launched at 30-40 bucks.

The problem with that at times is perceived values, most people associate cheaper games with poorer qualities so they don't bat an eye at it or anything.

Originally Posted by Carnage17

i agree with people not having enough time to play them but how about an alternate model altogether: make games shorter, cheaper, and by extension cheaper and shorter to make... this is also smaller risk on the part of publishers.

But they are making shorter games, the two Gears of War, Splinter Cell Conviction, and I'm sure tons of other games don't even begin to hit double digits for completion. But we still pay full price for it, (I'm sure a case could and would be made for co-op/online extending the standard play-time)

Originally Posted by Combine 017

I think Nintendo is already doing something like that... turns out they make a lot of crappy games.

Not the place for this conversation, but I'm just going to say you are wrong and leave it there.

[BreakABone]

I think it's brilliant, and don't think that it's intended to "battle" used sales. The concept is simple: as gamers migrate to heavier online play as a part of the experience, the publisher needs to be compensated.

If the gamer is the original purchaser, the publisher gets paid when the user buys the game; if the gamer is a second-hand purchaser, the publisher currently does not get paid. With Online Pass, EA is ensuring that second-hand purchasers will pay something for the maintenance of the server network and for access to premium content, since they extend the costs of providing these services.

Yes, I think it will become the norm at the major publishers, and think that EA is charging too little...

I think the game industry has created a problem for itself by giving consumers unlimited online game play for free. I think not just to battle used games, but as a basic business sense of generating more revenue from usage more and more of these programs will be looked at being implemented.

How consumers react is a totally different issue.

But overall the EA Sports Online Pass seems like a mild introduction. I can see consumers griping, but really it seems entirely fair that if a consumer is buying a second hand copy they are not going to get direct support from the publisher. It is not like they are charging a season pass for all users that want to play Madden online.

The reality is that these games are pretty expensive to develop and it is unrealistic to expect companies to support free online play forever. I think the bottom line in the industry requires companies to start to find ways to monetize online usage.

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/e...-says-analyst/