New approach to online play by EA Sports

Overheal

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

isnt there a cost for them from microsoft/sony to upload the service?

likely. Valve also alluded to the fact that DLC had to be within a certain size restriction, making all the TF2 Class Packs undistributable to Xbox 360s Orange Box without publishing a TF2.5 and putting it on the shelf.

BlitzKrieg

Valve also alluded to the fact that DLC had to be within a certain size restriction

yeah microsofts size restrictions are well known.

they've expanded them numerous times though (originally it was something ridiculously small and symphony of the night had elements cut to meet it.) I dont think sony implemented size restrictions, but considering there was until now no income for the service from consumers, I expect there was a definite cost involved to upload.

SeantheMan

I don't mind buying the game, and have no intention of buying it 2nd hand or trading it, so no problem.

I do however have a question ....

Myself and my housemate both play Fifa online regularly, and each have a paid Xbox subscription, however we both use the same xbox in the sitting room (although there is 2 in the house) to play online.

Will we need to buy 2 copies of the game and each get a code ? or is it 1 per console

gizmo

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

gizmo wrote: »

As for why it wasn't just held off the disc and released later, well given the nature of XBL and PSN it would have worked out cheaper for them doing it this way as they would have been able to avoid another cert pass for the update.

isnt there a cost for them from microsoft/sony to upload the service?

Actually scratch what I said, it wouldn't apply in this particular circumstance.

The primary cost on both platforms is the cert process which many indie developers have commented on previously. Sony have an additional charge for PSN content though which is pretty nasty for publishers, especially given the fact you can download content as many times as you want across 5 different consoles.

As for the DLC size restriction, I wasn't aware of any to be honest and if one were to look at the likes of the Borderlands DLC, it's far larger than the TF2 updates would have been.

BlitzKrieg

SeantheMan wrote: »

I don't mind buying the game, and have no intention of buying it 2nd hand or trading it, so no problem.

I do however have a question ....

Myself and my housemate both play Fifa online regularly, and each have a paid Xbox subscription, however we both use the same xbox in the sitting room (although there is 2 in the house) to play online.

Will we need to buy 2 copies of the game and each get a code ? or is it 1 per console

If you use seperate accounts, I'd say yes most likely you'd have to have 2 seperate codes.

but you wouldnt have to buy 2 copies of the game. A code can be bought on its own. But yeah its going to cost more and is a crappy part of the deal.

Exclamation Marc

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

If you use seperate accounts, I'd say yes most likely you'd have to have 2 seperate codes.

Just had a goo at the THQ Online Pass FAQS, and found this, so hopefully its the same for EA Sports. Can't imagine EA being able to take multiple pass-money off families for example.

Do I need a unique Online Pass for every user on my console?
No. One Online code will give online access to multiple users logged into the console where the Online Pass was first activated (subject to the console manufacturer’s and THQ’s terms of service).

BlitzKrieg

penny arcade weigh in on this topic and point out the blatantly obvious and perhaps is a bit too aggressive in one phrase:

I had a different reaction to the "fightin' words" of THQ's Cory Ledesma than most. I have a different reaction to lots of things, probably. But this in particular.

The idea that THQ is somehow "disrespecting customers" with this kind of rhetoric misunderstands the situation as completely as it is possible to do so. In a literal way, when you purchase a game used, you are not a customer of theirs. If I am purchasing games in order to reward their creators, and to ensure that more of these ingenious contraptions are produced, I honestly can't figure out how buying a used game was any better than piracy. From the the perspective of a developer, they are almost certainly synonymous.

It's exceedingly rare that I purchase a game from Gamestop these days. I got tired of being harangued for trying to buy products there, or being told that they didn't have a product when they did, or going across the street to Best Buy or Target or Fred Meyer and finding fifty copies of the game I was trying to buy heaped up like some heathen altar to commerce. There's more, besides. At some point in the last few years, I became incredibly uncomfortable with the used games market.

I don't think Online Codes that gate access to multiplayer are a particularly good idea, just watching the kinds of threads it generates - but that's exactly what Xbox Live does, for every game on the platform. Sony's considering codes as well, but they're getting it coming and going: they've committed themselves to a dedicated server infrastructure for first party titles, and multiplayer is "free," so a used copy of a Resistance or an Uncharted 2 is a worst case scenario. I prefer an approach along the lines of the Flashback Pack for the second Gears of War - something fun and extra, that feels like a reward. More treat than trick.

I traded in games for a long time, there's probably comics somewhere in the archive about it - you can imagine how quickly my cohort and I consume these things. It was sort of like Free Money, and we should have understood from the outset that no such thing exists. You meet one person who creates games for a living, just one, and it becomes very difficult to maintain this virtuous fiction.

(CW)TB

+ comic





Personnally his comparison to piracy is hitting a raw nerve on both ends I think. Everybody likes to play nice in the video game industry so someone pointing out gamestop are doing the same thing as piracy and are probably the single worse offender out there be as the column is titled...fighting words.

Personnally I'm beginning to wonder how the industry hasnt imploded yet?

daveharnett

The 'piracy' argument doesn't wash at all for me.

If I buy a second hand car, am I stealing from volkswagen? No, the product's resale value was a factor in determining the original RRP. The original purchaser bought on the understanding that he could recover a certain portion of the price when he was finished.

By reducing the resale value of their games, publishers are effectively increasing the total cost of ownership of their product for price-conscious customers.

My bottom line: the market won't allow publishers to sell us less valuable products at the existing price point. If they reduce the value of the game on the shelf, they will have to drop the price on the shelf (whether they choose to or are forced to by dwindling sales is up to them).

daveharnett

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Personnally I'm beginning to wonder how the industry hasnt imploded yet?

I'm more interested in why bricks and mortar game stores still exist. How do they add value to the process (and justify their cut) when the vast majority of gamers have everything they need to allow direct downloads?

This move toward one-time-keys further diminishes the power of the store - the physical disk on the shelf no longer grants the buyer 'possession' of a title, so why have it at all?

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

This is a repost of what I posted in a different thread some time ago but it's still relevant IMO ...

From a retailers point of view ..

This is a very complicated area with a few variables to consider.

• Trade ins fuel new game sales. A huge portion of new game sales are paid for in part exchange in the form of pre owned titles being traded in. Some publishers are aware and accept this. (edit from original post as a lot of publishers are now becoming quite vocal in their opposition) Publishers who do accept this don't have a problem with pre owned titles being used to pay for new titles but the grey area is where the pre owned title is then sold / traded in against another pre owned title which has no benefit to them.
• However, this drove up the cost price of new games as publishers sought to increase revenue. This is in both the form of cost price to retailers and the RRP's that go with them. In most cases and particularly in the last couple of years the retailers are selling the games at well below the RRP and in some cases selling at a loss. This is so they can get the loyalty of the customer and more importantly get the trade ins for them. It's no secret that the pre owned margins are a lot higher than new. New games could be anything from (minus) -5% to 10% margin with pre owned games at 40% (I'm going to defend ourselves here by pointing out that we don't operate on these pre owned margins ourselves but the major high street chains do) The industry is in a situation where the trade in market is actually keeping new game prices lower than the publishers themselves recommend and its the revenue from the trade in sales that is paying the bills / wages.
• Initiatives such as this or project $10 etc are going to change the dynamic of the market - this is inevitable. What is happening is that the €10 - €15 you would pay on top of your pre owned titles cost to access the features present in a new game will mean your pre owned games retail value will drop. This of course means what is being offered for trade in credit will also drop.
• What remains to be seen though is how this will change the market. My personal opinion is that if the pre owned trade in prices fall / the product becomes less attractive to the end user gamer then demand for new games will fall. Also if the pre owned trade is stifled as such I can't see retailers like Game / Gamestop etc being in a position to continue loss leading and price slashing the RRPs which will lead to higher retail prices for new games. That's a double whammy for publishers, less demand because of less cash in the market and a higher retail price too. I think ultimately publishers will have to react to the supply and demand economics of this and cut new game prices but whether or not retailers will be in a position to pass these cuts on will be another question.
• It makes for a changed landscape in the gaming industry and how it actually settles is anyones guess but we are going to see significant moving of the pricing goal posts as such.

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

daveharnett wrote: »

I'm more interested in why bricks and mortar game stores still exist. How do they add value to the process (and justify their cut) when the vast majority of gamers have everything they need to allow direct downloads?

This move toward one-time-keys further diminishes the power of the store - the physical disk on the shelf no longer grants the buyer 'possession' of a title, so why have it at all?

This is exactly why you are seeing the main chains now selling phones and computers etc. It's a shrinking market they are operating in. And as I said above if the trade in market is wiped out they won't be able to operate on the pricing structure of new games alone.

BlitzKrieg

daveharnett wrote: »

I'm more interested in why bricks and mortar game stores still exist. How do they add value to the process (and justify their cut) when the vast majority of gamers have everything they need to allow direct downloads?

simple.

Despite the claim that the gamers are now older more mature market, there is still a large number of them who can not financially express themselves online. Lack of visa card or using those difficult 3V cards is the most common issue. And then there's those who dont trust buying something without a physical copy of it, or those with poorish or difficult online connections. Put simply online purchases are not fluid enough to replace the most basic retail service.


I'm 25 and I've only been able to fully embrace online shopping this year, and I know I'm not alone on that issue.


I have other curiosities.

Why is the trade in ratio of video games so high?

In comparison to say dvds. Why are people so willing to trade in a game weeks after buying it but will hold on to a dvd for the rest of their life?

You talk about resale value and compare video games to cars...which I've seen alot of people do, but why the assumption at an automatic intent to trade in? Why cant games be compared to dvds where the 2nd hand element of the industry are at the fringes? HMV will do 2nd hand games...but not 2nd hand films.

I cant talk too much about the car industry because I've only ever owned one car which was 2nd hand and I didnt get to drive it much or even consider trading it in when I needed to focus elsewhere in my life.. But my understanding is the key difference between buying a 2nd hand game and a 2nd hand car is if I go to a volkswagen dealer and buy a 2nd hand Golf, volkswagen get a chunk of money as part of the franchise they have with that dealer. They get nothing if I buy from Ebay or buy & sell and I'll get it a heck of alot cheaper. But if I walk into any major retailer and buy a 2nd hand sega game then sega get nothing just the same as I buy from ebay or adverts.ie

gizmo

daveharnett wrote: »

The 'piracy' argument doesn't wash at all for me.

Well from the perspective of the publisher it is the same thing, they are getting absolutely no money for the used games which are being sold. All of that money goes back to the likes of Gamestop. The only valid argument for the benefit of this approach is that people use the money from trade-ins to purchase new games, however, given the number of people who claim to buy second hand games, it's naive to think that there isn't a very large proportion of people who buy these games exclusively.

daveharnett wrote: »

By reducing the resale value of their games, publishers are effectively increasing the total cost of ownership of their product for price-conscious customers.

Therein lies the difference between your feelings on the matter and those of the PA guys. They see the detrimental affect the "price-conscious customer" is having on the industry whereas said customer don't seem to care where their money goes as long as they get to save a couple of quid.

daveharnett wrote: »

My bottom line: the market won't allow publishers to sell us less valuable products at the existing price point. If they reduce the value of the game on the shelf, they will have to drop the price on the shelf (whether they choose to or are forced to by dwindling sales is up to them).

You're assuming that the re-sale price is included in the cost of the game though. If you were to examine the average development budget as well as the percentage of games which actually make a decent profit then I reckon you'd rethink any calls for the lowering of the RRP of games.

daveharnett

gizmo wrote: »

Well from the perspective of the publisher it is the same thing [as piracy], they are getting absolutely no money for the used games which are being sold.

I guess my real objection is to the language that is being used. The publishers feel like they are 'missing out' on potential revenue, and the undertone seems to be that this is the consumer's 'fault'. I don't accept that at all, this is just the market at work.

The publishers have realized that they are in a position to change the nature of the market, and that's fine. I buy most of my games through steam, and I have no problem with the notion of non-transferable games.

gizmo wrote: »

Therein lies the difference between your feelings on the matter and those of the PA guys. They see the detrimental affect the "price-conscious customer" is having on the industry whereas said customer don't seem to care where their money goes as long as they get to save a couple of quid.

I like gabe, but Child's Play seems to have left him with a terribly optimistic view of gamers. I think expecting that level of consumer responsibility in any 'demographic' as large and diverse as this is just unrealistic. Did you question the provenance of the last pair of runners you bought? The race to the bottom line is not a trend that is unique to the gaming industry.

gizmo wrote: »

You're assuming that the re-sale price is included in the cost of the game though.

`
I'm assuming that resale value supported the decision for (some) people to buy the game in the first place.

gizmo wrote: »

If you were to examine the average development budget as well as the percentage of games which actually make a decent profit then I reckon you'd rethink any calls for the lowering of the RRP of games.

As a dev, I have some appreciation of the difficulty and expense of creating a triple A title. The thing is, I don't really care if yet another half life/unreal tournament clone makes money.

Most of the games I've really enjoyed in the last few years have been comparatively low-budget, independently developed and distributed, cheap, and have sold bucketloads: the orange box, world of goo, plants v zombies, crayon physics, braid and the like.

daveharnett

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Despite the claim that the gamers are now older more mature market, there is still a large number of them who can not financially express themselves online. Lack of visa card or using those difficult 3V cards is the most common issue.

That's fair enough, but that could be solved very easily if MS/Sony really wanted to push their online distribution channels. You can allready by MS points (via vouchers) in the game stores. If MS wanted to spend a few quid, you would be able to buy them in any venue that sold phone credit.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

those with poorish or difficult online connections.

A complete non-issue for distributors now. Any games market big enough for them to really care about has virtually universal high speed internet connectivity.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I have other curiosities.

Why is the trade in ratio of video games so high?

In comparison to say dvds. Why are people so willing to trade in a game weeks after buying it but will hold on to a dvd for the rest of their life?

You talk about resale value and compare video games to cars...which I've seen alot of people do, but why the assumption at an automatic intent to trade in? Why cant games be compared to dvds where the 2nd hand element of the industry are at the fringes? HMV will do 2nd hand games...but not 2nd hand films.

I think that tells you a lot about the quality of most games tbh. Outside of the online multiplayer sphere (mostly the realm of teenage OCD brigade as far as I can tell), how many games have real replay-value? I can think of maybe a dozen in the last decade?

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

You talk about resale value and compare video games to cars...which I've seen alot of people do, but why the assumption at an automatic intent to trade in?

Cars are one of the only commodities which generally see more than one owner in their lifetime, hence the frequent comparisons. The fact is that digital media are by their nature more conducive to resale than cars.

BlitzKrieg

hm


I guess I dont understand it cause I dont trade in...only did it twice regretted it the 2nd time, the first time I was happy with the trade...but the 2nd time led me to play MGS4

gizmo

daveharnett wrote: »

I guess my real objection is to the language that is being used. The publishers feel like they are 'missing out' on potential revenue, and the undertone seems to be that this is the consumer's 'fault'. I don't accept that at all, this is just the market at work.

Well I wouldn't say it's their "fault" per say but it is the customer who is making the decision to save a fiver themselves rather than buying a new copy and supporting the developer. While isn't helped by the retailers who are pushing second hand sales as much as they can because of the far higher profit margins.

daveharnett wrote: »

I like gabe, but Child's Play seems to have left him with a terribly optimistic view of gamers. I think expecting that level of consumer responsibility in any 'demographic' as large and diverse as this is just unrealistic. Did you question the provenance of the last pair of runners you bought? The race to the bottom line is not a trend that is unique to the gaming industry.

True, however that same demographic are probably one of the most vocal when it comes to complaining about the quality and content in games. They can't completely ignore the developers when they highlight the lost revenues due to second hand games and then complain themselves when publishers don't invest in new IPs and innovation.

daveharnett wrote: »

As a dev, I have some appreciation of the difficulty and expense of creating a triple A title. The thing is, I don't really care if yet another half life/unreal tournament clone makes money.

That's odd as I, also a dev, would care as it proves to publishers that they don't need to invest in new IP or take risks in order to make money. That's a different topic though so I think it's best we try not to derail things.

daveharnett wrote: »

Most of the games I've really enjoyed in the last few years have been comparatively low-budget, independently developed and distributed, cheap, and have sold bucketloads: the orange box, world of goo, plants v zombies, crayon physics, braid and the like.

While I wouldn't really regard The Orange Box as having a low budget at all, it's a fair point regarding the other titles. As I've said in other threads though, I see no reason why we can't have these fantastic indie titles sitting beside the big AAA titles either. Thankfully said titles are immune from this issue as the majority of them have been distributed digitally.

daveharnett

daveharnett wrote: »

I don't really care if yet another half life/unreal tournament clone makes money.

gizmo wrote: »

That's odd as I, also a dev, would care as it proves to publishers that they don't need to invest in new IP or take risks in order to make money.

Sorry, let me rephrase:

daveharnett wrote: »

I don't really care if yet another half life/unreal tournament clone loses money.

For exactly the reasons you mention.

EA in particular have a lot of nerve complaining about consumers reselling games, when their business model seems to be to resell the same games (+10% extra shiny) every two years. But as you say, I guess that's another issue.

BlitzKrieg

just to keep people updated, check out the penny arcade forum and even the news post now as this topic has really blown up there in a massive scale.



back to my own thoughts on the used car comparison:

If I buy a second hand car, am I stealing from volkswagen?

I had a poke around online and as far as I can tell most of the franchised dealers do their reselling back through with volkswagen and they get a cut of the profit of the sale via their contract with the dealer. Go check the volkswagen website they have it set up that they directly link you to used car dealers who pay them for the name drop. Its not much different then if you opt to sell a 2nd hand game on steam, a portion of the cost goes back to the developer.


Unlike video games in retail where they are cut out completely when it goes second hand.


Yes cars sold on buy & sell or in used cars only lots do not give anything back to volkswagen...But they are not on the high streets sitting beside new cars. With video games it is. I still havnt had anyone justify why video games are the only commodity that allows this with nothing going back to the industry? Every industry has a 2nd hand market but none of them flood onto the highstreets except for videogames.

No, the product's resale value was a factor in determining the original RRP. The original purchaser bought on the understanding that he could recover a certain portion of the price when he was finished.

Car's are designed with this resale factor as someone already pointed out. I think EA's and THQ's bad business model with their sports series (fifa 01, 02, 03, 04) encoruged a similar thinking with video games and they are to blame for the bloated second hand industry which other developers and producers neither encoruged or wanted and everyone is suffering for it.

gizmo

daveharnett wrote: »

EA in particular have a lot of nerve complaining about consumers reselling games, when their business model seems to be to resell the same games (+10% extra shiny) every two years. But as you say, I guess that's another issue.

As discussed in other threads though, EA have turned it around big time on much of their big sports titles. Take FIFA for instance, that franchise has reclaimed it's top spot after years of no improvement helped Pro Evo overtake it. At least it's nice to see them learning their lesson.

More importantly, thanks for that info BlitzKrieg. I've always suspected that the manufacturers got a cut from the second hand market car market and that their comparison in the second hand games debate wasn't entirely valid.

BlitzKrieg

you know for me...


this is the topic that keeps on giving


Target major retailer in the US

now accept trade ins on video games

http://kotaku.com/5622931/target-is-taking-game-trade+ins-too

So yes this is quickly becoming a serious issue.

Overheal

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

simple.

Despite the claim that the gamers are now older more mature market, there is still a large number of them who can not financially express themselves online. Lack of visa card or using those difficult 3V cards is the most common issue. And then there's those who dont trust buying something without a physical copy of it, or those with poorish or difficult online connections. Put simply online purchases are not fluid enough to replace the most basic retail service.


I'm 25 and I've only been able to fully embrace online shopping this year, and I know I'm not alone on that issue.

In the Irish Market: yes. In comparison the US finance market has been almost entirely penetrated by e-currency companies like VISA Discovery and Mastercard. As synonymous as these brands are with Credit, none of these companies actually do any lending. They simply provide what the Irish would understand as Laser or Electronic Payment services worldwide. You don't need a line of Credit to buy online in the US - money in your checking [sic] account will suffice.

Why more Debit cards in Irish banks don't operate through these companies: I have no idea.

Thats before we discuss broadband access.

I have other curiosities.

Why is the trade in ratio of video games so high?

...

The **** knows. Companies have been advertising the trade-in mechanic for a decade now. I don't think I've ever done it. You take one look at the price you bought it for and the money they offer you and it doesn't take a genius to see the enormous margin they make on it. It used to be absolutely horrendous: 5-10 years ago they were making resale margins of 50-75%.

Well I wouldn't say it's their "fault" per say but it is the customer who is making the decision to save a fiver themselves rather than buying a new copy and supporting the developer.

As an average consumer: the average consumer doesn't think along that parallel. If I spend money on a new game vs. a used game it's because I want it new. I've tried it both ways. And your stepmother is not happy with you when she has to drive from ennis to limerick three times in a day because the guy behind the counter gave you 2 disc 2's of FFVIII and then the first disc crashed in the first place because it was scratched.

Further to that if I want to buy a new copy of Halo it's not because I'm saying to myself "I want to give more of my money to Bungie!" It's more like the same dynamic behind people that buy DVDs of Movies they really liked. And if the difference between a New and Used copy of Zone of the Enders 2 is a fiver, I might as well buy the new one, because who want's someone's sloppy seconds to save a fiver?

You go to the Flea Market. Theres a Mint Condition, never opened Super Mario RPG (SNES) For $45. And a Loose used cartridge for $30. Which do you want to buy?

gizmo

Overheal wrote: »

The **** knows. Companies have been advertising the trade-in mechanic for a decade now. I don't think I've ever done it. You take one look at the price you bought it for and the money they offer you and it doesn't take a genius to see the enormous margin they make on it. It used to be absolutely horrendous: 5-10 years ago they were making resale margins of 50-75%.

While it's been going on for a decade, it was never pushed with such vigour like it is now. The local GAME here has the Top 10 games shelf comprised of second hand games and beside that has a shelf of second hand versions of the next most popular latest games. At the bottom of this shelf and beside it again. i.e. deeper into the shop, you come to the new games. Their Deal Of The Week is also supplemented with several other "deals" which are, in fact, just second hand games. If you do bring the new version of a game to the counter they'll then ask you do you want to "save a couple of quid" by getting the pre-owned version. It's because of this that I don't blame the average consumer from taking the option but I'd like to think the more clued in gamer will realise what's happening when they buy one of these games.

Overheal

The average consumer yes. But thats still only about 4-6 in 10. The rest will get swept up in sales tactics, speaking as both a consumer and a salesperson.

I think we're on the same page though. The shops have been agressively marginalizing the First-Hand market to maximise their own profits. This is the inevitable publisher response. More will likely follow.

Healium

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

I previously got burnt by this, was in GAME buying ME2, saw it secondhand for £5 cheaper and thought happy days, wasn't till later that I realized about the Cerberus Network thing. Was raging at myself though not enough to cough up the extra amount to get the code. F@ck that, I am not going to support this gaming by installment model that this leads to, the content was finished (I think) when the game was published, it should have been on the disc in the first place.


While some of you will say "well it makes sure that people buy the game from the publisher rather than secondhand where they don't see a penny" my reply would be that many people can't afford new games unless they trade in older ones and if trade-ins were stopped or hobbled in this way you would probably see a reduction in total new game sales as people would be more cautious with their cash. (note: no sources to back this up just my gut feeling)

The Cerberus Network is a Collector's Edition exclusive, or else you have to fork out 1200 points. Personally, I wouldn't have paid 1200 points for it. I got the Collector's Edition for €30 new and used my Cerberus code. You didn't get "burnt", the Cerberus Network is awesome and information on it is clear on the packaging. They give you free DLC with it, and update the main menu with news stories from the game every day. It's a perk!

gizmo

Healium wrote: »

The Cerberus Network is a Collector's Edition exclusive, or else you have to fork out 1200 points. Personally, I wouldn't have paid 1200 points for it. I got the Collector's Edition for €30 new and used my Cerberus code. You didn't get "burnt", the Cerberus Network is awesome and information on it is clear on the packaging. They give you free DLC with it, and update the main menu with news stories from the game every day. It's a perk!

The Cerberus Network is not exclusive to the Collectors Edition, you get a code in every new retail copy of the game, standard or otherwise. As for the 1200 points, based on the price of the rest of DLC content, we've gotten our monies worth but given the dates involved it would have been nice if they had thrown in the Alternate Appearance Pack #1 too.