Well EA are officially disgusting Rip Off Merchants

Varik

Magill wrote: »

ye its ****ing bull****. We have 2 ps3's (Mine + family one). We'll soon have too buy two copies of most games because of this ****... EA and co are targeting the wrong ppl, anyone that disagrees with that can suck a dong.

Why would you need to buy 2 games , if you were only buying one before and using it on the 2 ps3 then you'd need to buy the code for a lot less than a full price game.

If you buy a new game you get 1 code, so buy an additional code for €10.

If you buy a used game, buy the 2 codes. in this case you aren't paying the publisher or developer anything so of course they don't have any reason to be nice or provide you with anything unless additionally paid.

You can also put you psn ids on both consoles and it will work as before 1 game + 1 code, as gizmo was saying.



Games are software and a legally covered as such but most of the law are not applied to them as there mostly seen as toys, you don't own a game you have the licence to use it that why there are no second hand pc games more so than the use of Cd keys.

gizmo

SeantheMan wrote: »

I did mention in the original post that it wasnt as much of a problem for me as I can afford it to buy another copy or redeem code if needed. My concern lay with families or kids who would get it for their birthday / xmas is all.

Well I'd recommend holding off on the concern and/or rage until we get other people to test if the FAQ is true. If so there is very little for anyone to be complaining about.

jaykhunter wrote: »

2nd hand games : why should the developers (and original retailers etc) get any money, though? It's not their property any more. 2nd hand CDs, DVDs, cars, anything on eBay etc; the developers or original proprietors don't get a cut. Why should video games be any different?

This has come up time and time again. The main example usually used is cars, in this market auto dealerships DO pay the manufacturers a fee in order to sell the cars so they are getting something back from used games sales. Which leads us on to the next point...

jaykhunter wrote: »

Developers should work out a better deal for getting a bigger slice of the pie, since they only get ~$27 from a $60 game. Or start their own used game chain, instead of doing what's easiest, screwing over the consumer. They should be going after GameStop, who annoys them in the first place (seeing their sweet used game profits), not us

Publishers have tried this and retailers told them to stick it. If a similar system existed whereby they paid X% of second hand sales back to publishers then it wouldn't be an issue but they won't so publishers have tackled the problem directly via the online pass for second hand copies.

jaykhunter wrote: »

They should also be looking into fully downloadable new games (on XBL/PSN), which would really cut out a lot of the middle men that add to the cost of a physical copy of a game.

While digital distribution is certainly taking off on the PC it'll be awhile before it finds mainstream success on consoles. Hell look at the number of people on both console forums who are using wireless internet from the mobile providers. With caps like those people couldn't afford to be downloading 5-8GB worth of data for every game.

Magill wrote: »

ye its ****ing bull****. We have 2 ps3's (Mine + family one). We'll soon have too buy two copies of most games because of this ****... EA and co are targeting the wrong ppl, anyone that disagrees with that can suck a dong.

So sign into your profile on whichever console you want to play it on, that means you'll definitely be able to play online. The only question from there is whether the online-pass enabled profile being on THAT console enables the other accounts to play. Basically the same thing I said to SeantheMan above.

Anyway, you can afford two PS3 and, I assume, two HDTVs to go with them, and you're raging over possibly having to spend $10 extra so that multiple people can get enjoyment from a single purchase? :pac:

mayordenis

Grumpypants wrote: »

No they don't nor should they, the developer has already been paid why should the developer get paid twice and not offer anything extra?

Why should the developer get payed twice for 2 different people to fully enjoy the license of a game? Why must 2 people pay for seperate ticket to the cinema? Why if me and my friend each want a burger must we buy our own?

Whats the difference from the developers point of view between

a. You Grumpypants buying a game and selling it to Gamestop, and then them selling it to another person.

or

b. You Grumpypants buying a game and copying the game and giving it to another person.

Helix

Grumpypants wrote: »

This online code is scumbag stuff they have already been paid for that game to go online now they are charging twice.

youre really missing the point here. if you buy the game from the publisher (ie first hand sale) you get the code for free. if you buy the game second hand you have to pay a tenner for the code. youre not paying twice if you buy new, the code is there for free

Grumpypants wrote: »

they fail to mention that 30% of people never go online so that is a potential 30% profit margin on their online side of each game. Really fair aren't they !!

but if those 30% of people buy the game new theyre paying nothing for their online code, so its costing them nothing extra. and if those 30% buy it second hand, they dont need to code, so have no need to pay for it, so its costing them nothing extra.

how are the publishers profiting from 30% who dont go online exactly, since both the above statements are true? those people dont pay for the online pass

Helix

Magill wrote: »

ye its ****ing bull****. We have 2 ps3's (Mine + family one). We'll soon have too buy two copies of most games because of this ****...

no yo wont

jesus people REALLY dont get how this works do they. lets break it down

you buy a game new, you get an online pass with it. this online pass allows the original registrant to play online on any console, and any online accounts on the original console are able to play too. what does this mean? it means if you have 2 ps3s, you put the disk into console A (which is owned by player 1), log in as player 2 (who owns console and use the online pass provided free with the game.

now player 2 can log into console B, the machine he owns, and play the game online without any problems, and player 1 can log onto console A and do the same - with one copy of the game

the onyl reason you would need 2 copies of the game in this case, is if the 2 players ever wanted to play against each other online.

so, summation of how online pass works

if you buy the game new, you get the online pass free. you DO NOT HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING EXTRA TO USE THE GAME ONLINE IF YOU BUY IT NEW. NOTHING. NO ADDITIONAL FEE, NO COST, NOTHING. ITS INCLUDED IN THE PRICE OF THE GAME

if however you buy the game second hand, for a saving of what is normally a fiver, you need to buy an online pass in order to use the game online. this is because the publisher doesnt see a penny of the cash you just spent on the second hand game.

everyone is up in arms complaining they cant buy games second hand now or theyve to buy an online pass. if you're REALLY that stuck for cash that you cant afford a fiver extra to buy a game new then you shouldnt be spending your money on video games

Grumpypants

mayordenis wrote: »

Why should the developer get payed twice for 2 different people to fully enjoy the license of a game? Why must 2 people pay for seperate ticket to the cinema? Why if me and my friend each want a burger must we buy our own?

Whats the difference from the developers point of view between

a. You Grumpypants buying a game and selling it to Gamestop, and then them selling it to another person.

or

b. You Grumpypants buying a game and copying the game and giving it to another person.

If you are going to use comparisons then you have to use two things that are comparable. It would be more like me buying a burger eating half of it and giving the other half to my mate. Then the guy from the chipper van chasing after use demanding we pay for a second burger even though there was no extra cost to him as two of use have enjoyed it and me giving him some cost him a sale:eek: . 2 people going into the cinema takes up two seats in the cinema thats why they can charge for two people.

The difference in you little question is that one is legal the other is illegal. Also in the point b i would retain a copy of the game so the cost to the developer of hosting the two us us online would be more than the cost of hosting one of us online.

Ive no problem if developers want to charge a licence, if EA turned around and said its 50 euro a year for a FIFA licence and every Oct 1st we post you the new software disk for free then great thats fine. But they dont, they sell me the new software every year it is not a licence to play the game you buy the actual game.

Have you ever bought a DVD and then 2 or 3 of ye sit down to watch it ? See anything wrong with that? Or should each of ye buy a separate copy?

This is about a code to play online, as ive said if they want to charge to play online then fair enough but charge everyone. That way the ones who dont go online get a cheaper game and those that do go online pay the same as they do now and those who buy it second hand also pay only if they go online.

Helix

Grumpypants wrote: »

If you are going to use comparisons then you have to use two things that are comparable. It would be more like me buying a burger eating half of it and giving the other half to my mate. Then the guy from the chipper van chasing after use demanding we pay for a second burger even though there was no extra cost to him as two of use have enjoyed it and me giving him some cost him a sale

yeah, thats not remotely comparable

with a game bought new, traded in then bought second hand, do you both only get half the game or something? fine, if you buy the game new and dont play it online coz you dont want to, then give it to your mate then he can use the online pass provided with it for free

otherwise, he needs to buy his own for a tenner

Helix

Grumpypants wrote: »

But they dont, they sell me the new software every year it is not a licence to play the game you buy the actual game.
.

you sir need to read the EULA in the manual of every game you own, and actually learn what on earth youre talking about. because you couldnt be any more wrong, at all

Grumpypants

Helix wrote: »

youre really missing the point here. if you buy the game from the publisher (ie first hand sale) you get the code for free. if you buy the game second hand you have to pay a tenner for the code. youre not paying twice if you buy new, the code is there for free

but if those 30% of people buy the game new theyre paying nothing for their online code, so its costing them nothing extra. and if those 30% buy it second hand, they dont need to code, so have no need to pay for it, so its costing them nothing extra.

how are the publishers profiting from 30% who dont go online exactly, since both the above statements are true? those people dont pay for the online pass

I never said you are paying twice for the code if you buy new. I said the publisher is getting paid twice, if they charge the second hand user to go online as i have already paid for that game to be used online. The debate on the disk being locked is a seperate debate. This is about an online access code for something they have already been paid for. If that game is traded in 100 times they get 100 times the cost of hosting one player online yet they still only have the cost of hosting 1 player online.

And you don't get the code for free with the original you paid 50 or 60 euro for the game that's not free. The cost of the online side is all included in the retail price. Something cant be free if you have to pay for it. It would be like saying this game is free but the CD its on costs 50 euro then that game isnt free!!!

Varik

Helix wrote: »

you sir need to read the EULA in the manual of every game you own, and actually learn what on earth youre talking about. because you couldnt be any more wrong, at all

And considering a US court just made the precedent that EULA must be adhered to, when dealing with second hand games the publishers/Developers will have a good chance of banning used games there.

Mental_Legend

It's not just EA doing it now. As far as I know, THQ did it with UFC 2010 aswell.

ntlbell

Grumpypants wrote: »

I never said you are paying twice for the code if you buy new. I said the publisher is getting paid twice, if they charge the second hand user to go online as i have already paid for that game to be used online. The debate on the disk being locked is a seperate debate. This is about an online access code for something they have already been paid for. If that game is traded in 100 times they get 100 times the cost of hosting one player online yet they still only have the cost of hosting 1 player online.

If the game is traded in 100 times they get paid for one license to use the code and 100 people get to play the game, so they don't get paid for 99 licenses?

Grumpypants wrote: »

And you don't get the code for free with the original you paid 50 or 60 euro for the game that's not free. The cost of the online side is all included in the retail price. Something cant be free if you have to pay for it. It would be like saying this game is free but the CD its on costs 50 euro then that game isnt free!!!

There has been no added cost for the online pass.

The cost of the license is still the same to you today as it was before the online pass. You're paying for a license to use the code, not the online pass.

If you buy the game second hand, no money goes toward the license for the use of the code, so you pay a small fee for your online pass, which is basically a cheaper version of the license to use the software.

Grumpypants

Helix wrote: »

you sir need to read the EULA in the manual of every game you own, and actually learn what on earth youre talking about. because you couldnt be any more wrong, at all

You know that a game manual isn't actual law in the same way ryanairs T&C's are not actual law as was proven during the ash cloud. Also it explains why the sale of an Autocad disk is illegal but the sale of a game isn't.

The rights it refers to are source rights ie you dont know own the game code. By buying this disk you don't own a part of the FIFA game. You do actually own that physical disk and box in front of you they cant come and take that off you. You do know that ?

And it states You shall not use the product or permit the use of this product on more then one console at the time.

Im not using it on two consoles at once

Grumpypants

Varik wrote: »

And considering a US court just made the precedent that EULA must be adhered to, when dealing with second hand games the publishers/Developers will have a good chance of banning used games there.

That case was an ebay seller who sold Autocad which is licensed software and illegal to sell. This is not the case here other wise every Gamestop would have pulled the games from the shelves.

gizmo

From the PC EULA of Fifa 11...

1. Limited License Grant and Terms of Use.

A. Grant. Through this purchase, you are acquiring and EA grants you a personal, limited, non-exclusive license to install and use the Software for your non-commercial use solely as set forth in this License and the accompanying documentation. Your acquired rights are subject to your compliance with this Agreement. Any commercial use is prohibited. You are expressly prohibited from sub-licensing, renting, leasing or otherwise distributing the Software or rights to use the Software, except by transfer as expressly set forth in paragraph 2 below. The term of your License shall commence on the date that you install or otherwise use the Software, and shall end on the earlier of the date that you dispose of or transfer the Software; or EA's termination of this License. Your license will terminate immediately if you attempt to circumvent the technical protection measures for the Software. A separate Terms of Service agreement governs your use of online services in connection with the Software. You may view the Terms of Service agreement at http://terms.ea.com.

...

2. Transfer. You may make a one-time permanent transfer of all your rights to install and use the Software to another individual or legal entity provided that: (a) the Technical Protection Measures used by the Software supports such transfers; (b) you also transfer this License and all copies of the Software; (c) you retain no copies of the Software, upgrades, updates or prior versions; and (d) the receiving party accepts the terms and conditions of this License. Such transfer may not include access to any online feature, service or functionality, or right thereto, including updates, patches, unlocked or downloadable content, dynamically served content and other online features and/or services that require registration with the enclosed access code, that are limited to one user account and/or that are otherwise non-transferable. If you purchased this Software via digital download and if you wish to transfer the Software in accordance with the terms of this License, EA recommends that you de-authorize all of your machines to allow the transferee to authorize the Software on his/her own machines; otherwise, the transferee may not be able to authorize the Software on any additional machines. For more information, visit http://activate.ea.com/deauthorize. EA may require that any end user of the Software register the Software online as a condition of use and/or purchase additional Licenses. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, YOU MAY NOT TRANSFER PRE-RELEASE COPIES OF THE SOFTWARE.

And yes, we're aware EULAs aren't binding in this country yet but if we follow the US, and hopefully we do in this respect, then they will be soon.

As a sidenote, the Autodesk decision was incorrect too imo:

In its reply, Autodesk argued that Vernor was not the lawful owner of the software he was selling because Autodesk only licenses copies of its software rather than selling them. Therefore, Autodesk claimed, no "sale" to the software's original owner had occurred, and the First Sale Doctrine did not apply.

He should not have been able to make a profit from their software that he never even purchased himself first hand.

Grumpypants

2. Transfer. You may make a one-time permanent transfer of all your rights to install and use the Software to another individual or legal entity provided that: (a) the Technical Protection Measures used by the Software supports such transfers; (b) you also transfer this License and all copies of the Software; (c) you retain no copies of the Software, upgrades, updates or prior versions; and (d) the receiving party accepts the terms and conditions of this License

Cheers Gizmo its always good when someone backs me up. This bit means you are aloud to trade the game they have no problem with that as long as the second person accepts some limitations to the online aspects as outlined.

Which ive never disagreed with although others seem to think you are restricted from doing that by the law, you aren't.

I don't think its right to then charge the second person for that online access but i never said it was illegal, maybe unethical. If they wanted to put a charge to access the game disk by a second user then that's a separate matter.


And this line about the Auto cad is very important "Autodesk only licenses copies of its software rather than selling them" This is the difference between the two formats. You buy the Autocad licence its in your name and this gives you access to the software, but the licence for a game is the game disk itself and who ever owns it, owns the licence.

jaykhunter

Helix wrote: »

this online pass allows the original...

:rolleyes:

gizmo

Grumpypants wrote: »

Cheers Gizmo its always good when someone backs me up. This bit means you are aloud to trade the game they have no problem with that as long as the second person accepts some limitations to the online aspects as outlined.

Which ive never disagreed with although others seem to think you are restricted from doing that by the law, you aren't.

Well bear in mind this is specifically the EA EULA for Fifa 11. Other EULAs I've read specifically prohibit the transfer of licences in such a manner. I assume EA altering theirs is designed to handle any lawsuits from those who wish to take the issue of charging for the online pass to court and also to reflect their change of policy in discouraging second hand sales via online bonuses i.e. Project Ten Dollar.

As for the legality of the issue, well as many have pointed out, the EULA is legally binding in the US now and I can see it's only a matter of time before it's rolled out elsewhere

On a final note regarding the above EULA, does the sale of said license by the retailer you've traded your copy to not constitute commercial use?

Helix

jaykhunter wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I figured it needed to be big since people are failing to grasp the concept repeatedly

deathrider

Just thinking, I'm not one for renting out games myself (don't think I've rented a game since my old Snes days), but won't the idea of renting a game to test-drive it get a firm kick in the teeth here too?

mayordenis

Grumpypants wrote: »

The difference in you little question is that one is legal the other is illegal. Also in the point b i would retain a copy of the game so the cost to the developer of hosting the two us us online would be more than the cost of hosting one of us online.

No that's not the ****ing difference in my question, learn to read please.

I asked what difference doers it make to the developer? And the answer is none, In neither equation does the developer or published get anything from the second party.

I'm going to stop now as this is pointless you are incapable of even taking the simplest point.

Helix

deathrider wrote: »

Just thinking, I'm not one for renting out games myself (don't think I've rented a game since my old Snes days), but won't the idea of renting a game to test-drive it get a firm kick in the teeth here too?

no, you get a 7 day free online trial if you want to avail of it. so you can get a full week of online free from a rented game

deathrider

Helix wrote: »

no, you get a 7 day free online trial if you want to avail of it. so you can get a full week of online free from a rented game

Ah, that's kinda cool then.

Grumpypants

gizmo wrote: »

Well bear in mind this is specifically the EA EULA for Fifa 11. Other EULAs I've read specifically prohibit the transfer of licences in such a manner. I assume EA altering theirs is designed to handle any lawsuits from those who wish to take the issue of charging for the online pass to court and also to reflect their change of policy in discouraging second hand sales via online bonuses i.e. Project Ten Dollar.

As for the legality of the issue, well as many have pointed out, the EULA is legally binding in the US now and I can see it's only a matter of time before it's rolled out elsewhere

On a final note regarding the above EULA, does the sale of said license by the retailer you've traded your copy to not constitute commercial use?

It does constitute commercial use but they have permission to sell the games or else you couldn't buy it in the first place. and with out getting bogged down in legal gargin the contract in the first place isnt legally enforceable you cant get some one to enter a contract that they cant see. The agreement is inside a sealed box and you supposedly sign up to the agreement buy buying the game.

Varik

Grumpypants wrote: »

That case was an ebay seller who sold Autocad which is licensed software and illegal to sell. This is not the case here other wise every Gamestop would have pulled the games from the shelves.

Console games are still licensed software and it's only illegal to sell if stated in the EULA, it has only just been decided that the EULA is enforcible in the US it may happen here as well.

gizmo

Grumpypants wrote: »

It does constitute commercial use but they have permission to sell the games or else you couldn't buy it in the first place. and with out getting bogged down in legal gargin the contract in the first place isnt legally enforceable you cant get some one to enter a contract that they cant see. The agreement is inside a sealed box and you supposedly sign up to the agreement buy buying the game.

Well if it constituted commercial use then the sale of second hand games would be disallowed under these terms at the point at which the original owner transfers the licence to the retailer. So yes, if EULAs did become binding retailers would be unable to re-sell your game.

From the consumers point of view, if you chose to reject the EULA on booting the game you should be able to legally return the game from where you purchased it.

Varik

Grumpypants wrote: »

the contract in the first place isnt legally enforceable you cant get some one to enter a contract that they cant see. The agreement is inside a sealed box and you supposedly sign up to the agreement buy buying the game.

In the US it apparently is as you still agree to the EULA after installing AutoCAD on a PC.

You never get the EULA outside the sealed box for any software it's either listed during the install or first run or on a paper still in the box, the term is Shrink wrap contract/agreement.

animaal

EA is re-releasing basically the same game year after year, with minor tweaks, and charging full price each time. People know this, and some are willing to pay a fraction of the price of this year's revision, for last year's game.

EA is taking the pi$$. The consumer is sacrificing the ability to transfer the full game to somebody else. What are we getting in return? Cheaper game prices? A real "software as a service" model (full price for the initial game, then low-priced annual updates)? I can't see any reason why a gamer would welcome EA's move.

My predictions:

Nobody will buy FIFA used any more, because it'd cost [used game price] + 10 quid. Somebody looking for a used footy game will buy Pro Evo instead. And possibly buy it new in future years. So EA won't make much income from used sales.
The people who do intend to buy FIFA new won't be able to sell last year's revision to part-fund it. That won't bother many, but it will deter a minority from upgrading. Feeling burnt, some of these will switch to Pro Evo.

The result: EA makes the same income from fewer sales. Pro Evo increases its market share.

nix

EA have always been rip off merchants :rolleyes:

Retr0gamer

I think it's a good model and at least the the developer and publisher of the game is getting moneyforsecond hand sales of the game they made instead of stores like Gamestop making massive profits on a product theydon't own the license for.