Used Game To Survive? EA Plans To Drop Online Pass 74
Krazy Kanuck writes "Introduced in 2010, Online Pass was marketed as a way to 'preserve' online content or DLC as titles were sold in the used game market. Many saw this as a way to cut out the second hand game market. EA has now decided to end this program 'partly because the players didn't like it.' Unfortunately this appears to only be for future released games, those previously released will still be subject to this feature. Activision and Ubisoft still use this form of content control, it will be interesting to see if they follow suit."
Of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Uuh no, matchmaking servers run by EA for many older sports games (like 2011 and older) are no longer online so I hope you like single player mode.
This is why people should never EVER buy multiplayer games without a LAN host option.
Re: (Score:2)
didnt work (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That and their hand was probably forced somewhat, in the face of the recent European ruling that companies cannot artificially block or limit second hand software sales they'd have had to do this anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that's the case. I don't think a court has tested whether presenting part of the game content as a free bonus for the first sale is actually a breach of resale rules. I'd certainly hope that it would be considered that way for all but the most trivial content but it's not been addressed.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think a court has tested whether presenting part of the game content as a free bonus for the first sale is actually a breach of resale rules.
Courts haven't even really properly tested whether the shrinkwrap license that says they didn't sell you anything but a license to use the software on the disk. A license that may or may not be transferrable or revokable. All you bought is a disk you may or may not be allowed to use.
Nor have they tested Steam's business model either. It looks like its a game i
Re: (Score:2)
Courts haven't even really properly tested whether the shrinkwrap license that says they didn't sell you anything but a license to use the software on the disk.
You may want to take a look at ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), and coming to a different conclusion, Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (D. Kan. 2000).
Re: (Score:2)
"[...] and coming to a different conclusion [...]"
That's sort of my point when I say "not properly tested", in that we still don't really know what's going to happen.
There's also...
United States v. Wise (9th Cir. 1977)
MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer (9th Cir. 1993)
Triad Sys. Corp. v. Southeastern Express Co. (9th Cir. 1995)
Wall Data v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. (9th Cir. 2006)
And when ruling on Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 2009, the district court found the precedents cited above to be in "direct, irr
Re: (Score:2)
and you have use me for all service work and only by my gas.
From the likes of EA, sure.... (Score:5, Insightful)
But EA doesn't encompass the entirety of the gaming industry. And while yes, many larger software and hardware companies are following suit with the hostility to consumers, this creates an amazing environment for indie game development companies to flourish.
Which, frankly, is exciting. I'm tired of the same ol' crap from companies too scared to take risks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the original purchasers stopped playing.
He doesn't have the game anymore you twit.
Think of it this way. Say I am the one millionth person to purchase a game to play online. If I sell or give my copy to someone else who goes to play online, I have stopped playing since I no longer have the game. The person who got the game from me is now the one millionth person online. Doing some arithmetic, 1,000,000 + 1 (the player I sold the game to) - 1 (being me the person who stopped playing) = 1,000,000
Re: (Score:2)
The risks I am referring to are that of game types, not payment models. Does your game REQUIRE online access? And I mean really require it; not a marketing directive to the programming team to hobble the game ( latest simcity )?
Because if you sold an online game, you can charge monthly access fees. While the F2P MMOs are doing well, the monthly access fee is still prominent enough as to be something people wouldn't mind paying for, if your game is worth it. Myself, I think there is a niche for both the
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... (Score:4, Insightful)
" Unfortunately this appears to only be for future released games, those previously released will still be subject to this feature"
Will they or will free codes be made available? There seems to be no concrete information on this anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
" Unfortunately this appears to only be for future released games, those previously released will still be subject to this feature"
Will they or will free codes be made available? There seems to be no concrete information on this anywhere.
Everything I have read on this today states "going forward" or "in the future", which would suggest that they do not plan to redact the existing program for existing games, most likely due to the cost involved to patch, or I would assume. So to answer your question, no I do not have any concrete evidence that would truly support that, though you'll note I prefaced it with "it appears".
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't expect them to patch anything - just insert a generic unlimited use code which will authenticate any game on their end. I hope that's what they'll do but I somehow doubt it ;)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Either way the big news here is this ...
EA did something that was not completely and truly horrible!
That is news.
Re: (Score:3)
They also went out of their way to say Sims 4 will have no always-on requirement, unlike the new Sim City. I think the backlash took them a bit by surprise.
I think the customer service calls (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DLC is more lucrative (Score:2)
I must've spent £50-80 on Mass Effect 2 and 3 story modules and I didn't build up a simmering hatred of EA in the process. I dare say that DLC makes enough money that online passes aren't worth it.
Come to think of it, can you even buy the story DLC without an Online Pass? It'd be a spectacular bit of foot-shooting if they put in a £15 barrier to the player spending money on things they might actually want.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You weren't among the pissed off masses that hated the fact that key plot points and story beats in Mass Effect 3 that explained everything were behind paywalls? What key plot points is that? (Are you referring to From Ashes or something else? I had a preordered collectors edition so if it's anything that came bundled with that I obviously missed that it wasn't part of the package)
Most of the pissed off masses hated ME3 because of the pathetic godchild ending(and I still do hate that part, it makes absolutely no sense and breaks established canon and whatnot)
Re: (Score:3)
But god, the protoreaper fight? I felt like I stepped into some crappy B movie or something.
But that's what I thought of the whole Mass Effect franchise... a mess of unskippable cut-scenes written by a frustrated wannabe SyFy Channel director.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At the time it came out, Mass Effect 1 was groundbreaking for a console title.
Highlighting the operative part of that sentence.
For PC players the graphics were like being back in 2000 and we've had story games like that since the 90's. The graphics on ME1 committed a cardinal sin, tried to kill the player with bloom.
But credit where credit is due, it had a good story in an industry where there is a serious dearth of good writing. But this is to be expected from the company that made the KOTOR games (RIP Bioware).
I'm just glad they did something about the unskipable cut scene
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's just it. The additional content was framed in such a way that my opposition to it as a concept exists at an intellectual level, and not an emotional one, while my will to play the "next part" of the story exists at a sufficiently immediate emotional level that I wind up going ahead and getting it on the spur of the moment (say when it goes half price, as I did with Leviathan).
It helps that a lot of it is really, really good and came long, long after the game itself. It's easier to grudge Javik
Re: (Score:2)
I was one of the "suckers" who bought Mass Effect 1 & 2 when Steam had them on sale. And just like EA predicted, once I reached the end of 2, I wanted to know how it all ended. So not only did they get me as a very reluctant Origin user, but they also have me seriously considering purchasing the Mass Effect 3 DLC's (which are still full price). Much more profitable and it doesn't upset your customer base (well, as much).
Dammi
Re: (Score:3)
funny :)
steam is the gateway drm...
Re: (Score:2)
funny :)
steam is the gateway drm...
Mass Effect 2 isn't on Steam any more because Valve wasn't happy about DLC for it only being sold by EA through an in-game store.
To clarify: It's not that it had an in-game store they disagreed with, only that users couldn't pay for it from their Steam wallets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I now wait until the full game with all DLC included is on sale for $5. The only game I've bought on release (actually, pre-release) in the last few years is Guild Wars 2, because you can't avoid DLC in MMOs.
So it's costing them money from me.
Re: (Score:2)
EA obviously doesn't do all-DLC-included editions of these games for just that reason.
I wish they would've gone further (Score:2)
More often though, I buy my games new, so I wish EA had actually taken this even further. They could have just priced the games at $50 and asked for an extra $10 if you wanted the online, instead of charging $60 for everything bundled together. That way I wouldn't have to foot the bill for the devel
Used games still over (Score:3)
You can think of it two ways... (Score:2)
Either
1: It's no longer necessary because the next gen consoles from Sony and Microsoft will have some sort of way of limiting used game sales
And/Or
2: EA is missing out on a lot of revenue by taking its ball and going home.
Re: (Score:2)
Good Riddance (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much this. Its gotten to the point that I don't even look at new releases. I'll wait 6-8 months until all the obviously pre-planned DLC is out and then I'll buy it on sale at steam bundled with all the DLC, usually includes the "pre-order DLC" too if applicable.
I used to buy games and then x-pacs, but the money grubbing has reached the point that realease day is really just the beginning of a staggered launch.
I can wait 3-6 months and get the whole thing bundled together.
Feature? (Score:1)
Unfortunately this appears to only be for future released games, those previously released will still be subject to this feature.
How can that be called a feature?
Online pass was a good idea. (Score:1)
Lets face facts. For games to be played online the developer and or publisher have to pay to keep the servers running. It costs them manpower, bandwidth, hardware/resources, maintenance, time, energy, electricity and development costs. So to take advantage of that online gaming the consumer has to pay at least something because to just think a dev/pub should shell out each month for years on end is a bit silly.
Say you buy madden used. EA doesn't see a single penny off that. That person then proceeds to play
Re: (Score:2)
Go home, Riccitiello. You're drunk.
Re: (Score:2)
I buy games new, but wait until they're $20 or under.
What this likely *really* means... (Score:5, Interesting)
On the surface this may look like EA is giving up it's quest to kill used games. I find that rather unlikely.
What this likely *really* means, is that 'online pass' will soon be redundant. With ps4 and the next xbox soon to be out, this moves all but confirms that there will be something similar at the system level on both consoles, likely with publisher-friendly terms so they can share in on the ransom windfall.
EA is shutting down theirs early to try and save face and let Sony and MS look like the jerks next gen, when in reality, it was probably their idea and lobbying that forced Sony and MS's hands.
So..yippie?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm sure EA crammed it down their unwilling throats, with a smelly yet gold-encrusted plunger taken from Riccitiello's gold-plated water closet.
Why would Microsoft or Sony care about losing revenue from used game sales? The full revenue they get from a new game sale and the $7 license fee for 3rd party games, who would want that money?
Re: What this likely *really* means... (Score:2)
Sheesh..so maybe 'forced' was an overlly strong word to use.
But consider: EA may not have the clout they once had, but they are still one of the largest game publishers in the world and you still want them making games for your fledgling console, I think. And if 'the other console' may be giving them what they want, you are likely to consider the same.
But this is maybe more likely: MS and Sony saw 'online pass' and decided they want that money instead of EA. It's their network after all. The console guys gi
Resale Economics (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Reselling games is stupid and always has been.
Because you say so? I've sold many games for around half-price, games that otherwise would have sat collecting dust.
Gamestop brainwashed many people like you.
GameStop being a terrible place to buy or sell used games. EBay is a much better deal, for both the buyer and seller.