Well EA are officially disgusting Rip Off Merchants

johnny_ultimate

animaal wrote: »

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.

Firstly, you're seriously underestimating the market share of FIFA. My brother and his friends who never buy games rush out every October to buy the latest upgrade. I don't get yearly updates, but the people who put MONTHS of playtime into each installment wait with bated breath for each update. I don't pretend to understand why, but hell I don't pretend to understand FIFA! It's a franchise which is far more popular than the big franchises we as the more hardcore gamers would get excited about.

I don't really get your logic though. People will buy the game they perceive as better. For years, all the football fans I knew bought Pro Evo. But then FIFA upped the game and that's now the game of choice. I haven't heard them mention online passes at all. These are the people who buy on release day every year. Used games won't factor into it.

I get your final conclusion that used games sales will decrease (I don't necessarily agree that everyone will be aware of it, though). But that's exactly the point. These kind of things are in place to encourage 'new' purchases, which I totally and utterly agree for the most part. I'd rather the developer get some of my fifty euro, as opposed to Gamestop getting the whole fricking thing (Gamestop, I should re-emphasise, are by a distance the worst games retailer at the moment - even for new titles Smyths and HMV will charge five to twenty euro less. I often see used games there retailing for far more than other retailers sell a brand new copy for a few months after release. I never shop there unless I really have to)

I've bought games off Ebay that the developer won't benefit from, granted. But these are rare ones that I couldn't pick up in a shop. For the most part, if I can buy new I will. Therefore I currently find no issue with online passes. And anyway, very few if any retailers charge RRP anymore. I don't think I've paid more than fifty for a new game on launch day in years, in regular non-online retail stores. Worst case scenario someone else in the family needs an online pass? Well they're getting the game free anyway so a tenner is hardly a problem IMO! If I buy the game new, it is not going to be an issue as I get my online pass without any hassle. If someone else wants to play, well they only have to pay a fraction of what I paid in the first place!

Helix

animaal wrote: »

EA is re-releasing basically the same game year after year, with minor tweaks, and charging full price each time

they havent done that since they changed the engine 5 years ago

each years has been a far superior game than the previous one

Meirleach

Damn those greedy preowned game stores, they should all be banned, them and those godforsaken 2nd hand bookshops. :rolleyes:

Optimalprimerib

animaal wrote: »

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.

But do the servers for the old games not go obsolete when the new iteration comes out? If i was not planning to play online i wouldnt bother with 11 as the older games are still perfectly good for a footy fix and with this new code blocker they will be dirt cheap

gizmo

Meirleach wrote: »

Damn those greedy preowned game stores, they should all be banned, them and those godforsaken 2nd hand bookshops. :rolleyes:

Yes, they're exactly the same. Loads of second hand book stores make $2billion in revenue from sales, right? :rolleyes:

Sabre0001

It's a good step for EA and developers to take in my opinion. I rarely buy 2nd hand games anyway so it doesn't affect me - when paying nearly the same amount as the new game, I prefer the game to be properly new!

@Optimalprimerib - if you're not bothered by Online, you can still buy FIFA 11 and state that you are not interested in online features at the prompt.

All this move will do is ensure that Gamestop & co. have to reduce the trade-in values of games and drop the price of a pre-owned game (i.e. I won't get €30 for trading in 11 tomorrow and see it on sale again for €43).

Kiith

I've no problem with this whatsoever. Seeing Halo: Reach 2nd hand for €41.99 when its €44.99 new is pretty much why.

sarumite

Since EA hasn't recieved anything from you in return for your copy of FIFA, they owe you nothing. You didn't have any interaction with EA, so I can hardly see how you can call them rip off merchancts. They sold the FIFA box with a code inside it. If you didn't get that code or it is no longer valid, then take it up with the people who sold you the item.

Greyfox

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

These kind of things are in place to encourage 'new' purchases, which I totally and utterly agree for the most part. I'd rather the developer get some of my fifty euro, as opposed to Gamestop getting the whole fricking thing (Gamestop, I should re-emphasise, are by a distance the worst games retailer at the moment - even for new titles Smyths and HMV will charge five to twenty euro less

Actually you'll find HMV are easily the most expensive place to buy games these days, about 70% of what they sell can be found cheaper elsewhere. Sadly online passes will become more and more popular in the next few years which I really, really hate but it's perfectly understandable.

Personally, I think it's absolutely wonderful that theirs such a huge selection of 2nd hand games available these days, I paid €44 in game the other day for Bioshock 1&2 and splinter cell conviction together, I don't think it's fair to blame retailers for simply taking advantage of the fact that so many people are happy to trade in games for peanuts.

Grumpypants

Kiith wrote: »

I've no problem with this whatsoever. Seeing Halo: Reach 2nd hand for €41.99 when its €44.99 new is pretty much why.

Ive seen this point a few times and Helix has mentioned it too that the be evil Gamestop are charging a fiver less for than the new game and stealing money from the friendly publisher. But ignoring that the evil Gamestop have discounted the New game by 25 euro. Thats the only reason the used game is a fiver cheaper.

Remember the friendly publishers want to remove trade ins all together. This will stop the game stores from being able to offer such discounts on new titles pushing the price back up to the 69.99 that the friendly developers want to charge you.

It surely has to be the only consumer group in the world that wants to push up the price of the products it consumes. And don't say they wont push up the prices because of internet sites, they will have to. A shop cant operate by selling at cost price and wont be able to compete with a internet site that isn't subject to VAT.

speedboatchase

Meirleach wrote: »

Damn those greedy preowned game stores, they should all be banned, them and those godforsaken 2nd hand bookshops. :rolleyes:

Not comparable at all, considering the cost of games and how much they cost to produce too.

Varik

Grumpypants wrote: »

Ive seen this point a few times and Helix has mentioned it too that the be evil Gamestop are charging a fiver less for than the new game and stealing money from the friendly publisher. But ignoring that the evil Gamestop have discounted the New game by 25 euro. Thats the only reason the used game is a fiver cheaper.

This will stop the game stores from being able to offer such discounts on new titles pushing the price back up to the 69.99 that the friendly developers want to charge you.

Competition between the different shops keep the prices down. Games are not €69.99 now as they were at the very start of this generation with the mark-up due to the increased difficulties associated with the new platform as cost went down so did prices. Developers and mostly Publishers don't set the RRP so where are you getting that Gamestop discount €25, any further reduction is competition.

gizmo

Grumpypants wrote: »

Remember the friendly publishers want to remove trade ins all together. This will stop the game stores from being able to offer such discounts on new titles pushing the price back up to the 69.99 that the friendly developers want to charge you.

It surely has to be the only consumer group in the world that wants to push up the price of the products it consumes. And don't say they wont push up the prices because of internet sites, they will have to. A shop cant operate by selling at cost price and wont be able to compete with a internet site that isn't subject to VAT.

Games were heavily discounted from RRP at retail long before the used game market exploded in the manner in which it has. Amazon, for instance, does the same thing yet doesn't offer trade-ins and has to add in VAT.

Grumpypants

Varik wrote: »

Competition between the different shops keep the prices down. Games are not €69.99 now as they were at the very start of this generation with the mark-up due to the increased difficulties associated with the new platform as cost went down so did prices. Developers and mostly Publishers don't set the RRP so where are you getting that Gamestop discount €25, any further reduction is competition.

Publishers do set the RRP who else would do it ?

Where did i get it from? I got it from the publishers themselves who email me the list of games coming out, what they charge and what they set as the RRP. Believe me when i say no shop in Ireland could sell games at €45 and remain open.

Here for example is one email for Halo reach "Halo: Reach is available in standard edition (€69.99*), Limited Edition (€79.99*) and Legendary Edition (€119.99*)".

Shops had to drop prices to compete with each other and internet sites but they could only do this because the majority of their profits come from used game sales.

They sell new games at almost cost price how can they continue to do that, pay VAT, pay rent,pay staff, pay rates etc etc if they don't make any profit of the product it sells? All the shops will have to push up prices or close down its basic economics.

Varik

GameStop annual 10-K report.



Sure Gamestop aren't making any money, 20% on new games and 45-49% on used gross.


http://www.secinfo.com/dsvrp.u7Cc.htm

animaal

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I don't really get your logic though. People will buy the game they perceive as better. For years, all the football fans I knew bought Pro Evo. But then FIFA upped the game and that's now the game of choice. I haven't heard them mention online passes at all. These are the people who buy on release day every year. Used games won't factor into it.

The new pricing model offers absolutely no advantage to consumers over the previous pricing model. The gamer has fewer rights than he had with previous versions of the game, but the RRP is no lower. While there are sure to be many people for whom this makes no difference, there are some who consider it a step backwards. I'm one, and I mightn't be the only one. So the pricing model by itself won't create one extra sale, but will deter some. I.e. the model reduces sales of the game below what it would otherwise be.

I believe the pricing model will wipe out the demand for used copies of FIFA 11. So I don't think there will be many additional passes bought. But if any at all are bought (some are bound to be), then the average revenue per disk sold will be higher than last year's.

So that's my logic. The game will sell fewer copies, but with more revenue per disk sold. And some of the people who get their back up about it will move to Pro Evo. Obviously not the died-in-the-wool FIFA devotees. On the flip side, I can't see the pricing model attracting people to FIFA from Pro Evo.

(Of course this assumes neither EA nor Konami produces the most fantastic gaming experience ever, or the worst mess ever)

Grumpypants

Varik wrote: »

GameStop annual 10-K report.



Sure Gamestop aren't making any money, 20% on new games and 45-49% on used gross.


http://www.secinfo.com/dsvrp.u7Cc.htm

That 20% is a percentage of profits that doesn't necessarily translate into a 20% profit on each game sold but lets just say it does for arguments sake.

You have 4 forms of making profit
A makes 6%
B makes 20%
C makes 46
D makes 28

Take away option C what has to happen the other options? They have to take up the slack. You cut 1 billion dollars from their profits they have two options sell twice as much as they do now or raise prices.

What are the chances of selling twice the number of new games as they do now to people who cant offset some of the cost using their old games in a recession?

Sierra Oscar

These sort of occurrences are going to occur more and more, as ultimately developers want to stamp out the second hand games market.

The practice is already widespread on the PC. Take Steam for example - once you register a CD Key to a Steam account you may not use that CD Key again, and you can only be logged into your Steam account on the one computer at the one time.

Varik

Grumpypants wrote: »

That 20% is a percentage of profits that doesn't necessarily translate into a 20% profit on each game sold but lets just say it does for arguments sake.

It's a gross profit it means what it means(selling price - buying price), it doesn't include rent and the like but it is a very normal gross profit for a lot of things. Only very unique products are capable of getting 40% for the manufacturer and a shop getting that is far from common.

Grumpypants wrote: »

You have 4 forms of making profit
A makes 6%
B makes 20%
C makes 46
D makes 28

The D is the overall and you missed other, the lower overall gross is mostly the low(comparative)profit on console sales with high price and no shops online or otherwise have good profits on the consoles but in the end that will be the last thing a brick and mortar shop will have.

Grumpypants wrote: »

What are the chances of selling twice the number of new games as they do now to people who cant offset some of the cost using their old games in a recession?

Boohoo they make a 1 billion profit instead of 2 billion, and people should do without if they're that hard up they shouldn't spend money on games in the first place.

Gamestop do amazingly well, those profits are not normal they could give developer and publishers a 50% and still do €2 billion in profits.

Dedicated games shop need developers/publishers, but developers/publishers can do without Dedicated shops. The only ones who have to appease shops in the hardware manufacturers.

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Take Steam for example - once you register a CD Key to a Steam account you may not use that CD Key again, and you can only be logged into your Steam account on the one computer at the one time.

I got HL2 and a good while later i got the orange box, as soon as i did i got the chance to give someone one of my code, this isn't the same but Valve are very accommodating.

PC games are in no doubt considers software rather than toys so PC games don't really apply to these changes but Valve are very good to their customers more than a lot of others in any business.

Sierra Oscar

Varik wrote: »

I got HL2 and a good while later i got the orange box, as soon as i did i got the chance to give someone one of my code, this isn't the same but Valve are very accommodating.

PC games are in no doubt considers software rather than toys so PC games don't really apply to these changes but Valve are very good to their customers more than a lot of others in any business.

That is a very fair point - I guess there are ways developers can protect their own sales, without necessarily pissing off their customers at the same time.

noodler

Helix wrote: »

the blame here lies squarely at the feet of second hand games retailers with low buy back prices who then retailed the game for a fiver less then full price and got to keep every penny from it - no different to piracy and shouldnt be allowed

you think its bad now, wait until they start requiring you to enter a code from the manual the first time you play a game to make it work - coz thats coming... and imo the publishers are dead right

Dead right? To piss all over their customers in an attempt to avoid the main culprits?

gizmo wrote: »

So rather than buying two copies of the game you decided to split the price of the game and share it between you? And now you're complaining that both you and your housemate do not have full access to all online functionality? And you're calling them rip off merchants?

What a load of philisophical w&nk. Yeah I really ripped off that company the other day when I lent my mate that BR/DVD/CD/Book/Power tool etc.

Helix wrote: »

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

Some just don't necessarily agree with you.

Helix wrote: »

they havent done that since they changed the engine 5 years ago

each years has been a far superior game than the previous one

Thought opinion was mixed on 11 being better than 10?

gizmo

noodler wrote: »

Dead right? To piss all over their customers in an attempt to avoid the main culprits?

Publishers attempted to negotiate with retailers for some sort of profit split and they flat out refused. They then turned to ways which both increase the perceived value of the product first hand through additional content (Project Ten Dollar) while at the same time reducing the value of the second hand market by making this content only available to first time buyers. As you can see most people don't have a problem with this as they prefer to support the industry which provides them with their entertainment.

noodler wrote: »

What a load of philisophical w&nk. Yeah I really ripped off that company the other day when I lent my mate that BR/DVD/CD/Book/Power tool etc.

For starters, I think you need to look up the definition of philosophy, nothing I said there is "philisophical w&nk".

Secondly, when you lent your mate that BR/DVD/CD/Book you increased the likelihood that they would not have to purchase it themselves hence it was potentially a lost sale. On the other hand, perhaps in the case of the CD, they may decide to purchase it on the strength of that lending. Unfortunately, since you do not own the content and merely a licence to play it, you don't have the right to make that call.

noodler wrote: »

Thought opinion was mixed on 11 being better than 10?

What's even more important in the context of that thread of discussion was that the potentially negative points were to do with changes made to the games mechanics. While the reception to them may be mixed at least it shows that they are, in fact, innovating year on year hence the criticism of "the same game every year" is incorrect.

alastair_doom

Grumpypants wrote: »

They have to take up the slack. You cut 1 billion dollars from their profits they have two options sell twice as much as they do now or raise prices.

What are the chances of selling twice the number of new games as they do now to people who cant offset some of the cost using their old games in a recession?

That would only be true if there was a monopoly. There are still plenty of places which sell games at the current price point of gamestop and don't deal in second hand games, ans as such wont be affected by this news. Raising prices would only drive people to alternative shops, or encourage more people to buy online. If anything they might have to get more competitive in selling their new games.

Helix

animaal wrote: »

the pricing model by itself won't create one extra sale, but will deter some. I.e. the model reduces sales of the game below what it would otherwise be.

I believe the pricing model will wipe out the demand for used copies of FIFA 11. So I don't think there will be many additional passes bought. But if any at all are bought (some are bound to be), then the average revenue per disk sold will be higher than last year's.

So that's my logic. The game will sell fewer copies, but with more revenue per disk sold. And some of the people who get their back up about it will move to Pro Evo. Obviously not the died-in-the-wool FIFA devotees. On the flip side, I can't see the pricing model attracting people to FIFA from Pro Evo.

(Of course this assumes neither EA nor Konami produces the most fantastic gaming experience ever, or the worst mess ever)

You seem to think ea care how many 2nd hand copies are sold. They dont.

Money made from zero 2nd hand game sales: 0

Money made from a million 2nd hand game sales: 0

Ea dont want people to buy 2nd hand, they want them to buy new. If gamestop want to sell fifa 2nd hand now they have to make it worth it to the consumer, so a minimum of 20 quid below new price is required to make anyone bother. How this is worse than 5 quid below shelf for a used game is beyond me. Its forced gamestop to reduce 2nd hand prices on ea titles

I never understood people buying used for a fiver less. Nobody is that hard up that they cant pay the difference towards a new game, and if they are video games shouldnt be on their shopping list in the first place

Star Bingo

EA are charging €10 for player form updates in FIFA 11 :rolleyes:

FIFA 11 is the same game year in / year out and with all us soccer mongs it sells beyond well. thats just one instance of it in EA Sports titles, the only proper work they have to do with em is with the ushering in of each new generation of consoles. not very often - sure it should only require tweaks but with aspects of the core untweakable they're rarely enough, i'm actually bored of essentially the same game over the past 4yrs. distinctly less effort than other developers for distinctly more sales. also FIFA 11 keeps telling me the "online pass is corrupt" and asks to d/l it again, but its not often. as in how often i turn the game on - it always asks.

this impending phenomenon of making 2nd hand titles redundant will scupper my trade-in practice. €50 for a new game instead of say €20. thats going to cost me more than twofold or the likelyhood i'll play dramatically less games. its major - the jailbreak thing suddenly becomes all the more justifiable, and inviting

gizmo

Star Bingo wrote: »

EA are charging €10 for player form updates in FIFA 11 :rolleyes:

Optional player form updates.

Star Bingo wrote: »

FIFA 11 is the same game year in / year out and with all us soccer mongs it sells beyond well. thats just one instance of it in EA Sports titles, the only proper work they have to do with em is with the ushering in of each new generation of consoles. not very often - sure it should only require tweaks but with aspects of the core untweakable they're rarely enough, i'm actually bored of essentially the same game over the past 4yrs. distinctly less effort than other developers for distinctly more sales. also FIFA 11 keeps telling me the "online pass is corrupt" and asks to d/l it again, but its not often. as in how often i turn the game on - it always asks.

If you had been playing it for the past 4 years then you'd realise that is when they put the most work in and kicked Pro Evo to the curb, Fifa 10 being the final nail in that coffin even for the PE diehards.

As for the highlighted case, that's simply ignorance of the investment in terms of both time and money that it take to develop a new title and engine.

Star Bingo wrote: »

this impending phenomenon of making 2nd hand titles redundant will scupper my trade-in practice. €50 for a new game instead of say €20. thats going to cost me more than twofold or the likelyhood i'll play dramatically less games. its major - the jailbreak thing suddenly becomes all the more justifiable, and inviting

I'd wager you won't play less games personally but that's besides the point. Developers simply shouldn't have to suffer so you can save a couple of quid. As for the jailbreak comment, nothing justifies piracy.

jill_valentine

alastair_doom wrote: »

That would only be true if there was a monopoly. There are still plenty of places which sell games at the current price point of gamestop and don't deal in second hand games

There are? In Ireland?

Having worked in a number of game shops - I'm a high flyer, me - it bothers me how few people seem to recognise the importance of the second hand trade to the industry, and the implications of moves like these. The margin on new titles and consoles is effectively negligible by comparison, so a big new release is pushed at launch purely on speculation that it will generate preowned sales later on down the line, when the people who buy it come to trade it in. That's why companies haven't gone after the pre-owned trade in the past. Without the preowned trade to keep the stores open, there won't be any stores to sell their shiny new releases for them. It's all a very delicate ecosystem, and if I were in EA's place, I'd be wary of tampering with it so aggressively.

On the one hand, the margin a store gets for a newish title in preowned is extortionate, but;

a) That margin has to absorb the losses inferred from the shelf-dwelling swill that will depreciate to the point where it doesn't recoup the price of the receipt paper it takes to sell it.

and

b) The preowned trade is what keeps a store in business. Now, nobody on earth is a big Gamestop or Game fan, but bear in mind, without those stores, the control over pricing reverts directly to companies like EA and Activision - and frankly, given their previous form in the field, that prospect doesn't bode well.

gizmo

jill_valentine wrote: »

The margin on new titles and consoles is effectively negligible by comparison, so a big new release is pushed at launch purely on speculation that it will generate preowned sales later on down the line, when the people who buy it come to trade it in. That's why companies haven't gone after the pre-owned trade in the past.

I'd argue that the reason they haven't gone after them before is that, on one hand the problem was never been as large as it is now while on the other they didn't have the means to do anything about it. With the likes of Live/PSN and more online savvy gamers, they now have the ability to both control access to online-based feature and deliver any incentives along the way.

jill_valentine wrote: »

Without the preowned trade to keep the stores open, there won't be any stores to sell their shiny new releases for them. It's all a very delicate ecosystem, and if I were in EA's place, I'd be wary of tampering with it so aggressively.

I don't get this assertion, these stores were able to operate and sell games below their RRP for quite some time before the second hand market took off due to aggressive pressure from retailers. All that is changed is that they saw the massive profit margins to be made on second hand titles and pushed them as much as they could.

A final point regarding the figures previously posted. In the same month that Gamestop posted their yearly figures showing the $2billion in revenue they made from second hand sales, the ESA calculated that the industry as a whole was worth $22 billion that same year. Now that's one company controlling a source of revenue which is comparable to 11% of the total industry and which is unwilling to pay any percentage or profits or licence to continue operating in such a manner. That to me is being a disgusting rip off merchant.

Helix

Star Bingo wrote: »

this impending phenomenon of making 2nd hand titles redundant will scupper my trade-in practice. €50 for a new game instead of say €20

unless youre buying a year behind the rest of the world, theres no bloody way youre paying €20 second hand for a game that's €50 new

Helix

jill_valentine wrote: »

Without the preowned trade to keep the stores open, there won't be any stores to sell their shiny new releases for them.

good

coz theyre all rip off merchants for the most part

direct from developer digital distribution is only around the corner anyway. the developers know it, the publishers know it, and the game stores know it