Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Well EA are officially disgusting Rip Off Merchants

Options
124

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    I don't deny that a time of only digital distribution is inevitable, but I am not looking forward to it. I don't like the idea of those companies having complete control over how their games get to me because they already act like wangs whenever the possibility presents itself.

    I foresee a lot of monopoly pricing and gimped standard editions in our future, and it's not a prospect I relish. Besides which, my bandwidth limit already whines at me. :(


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    I don't like the idea of those companies having complete control

    they already do, like it or not


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    No, they don't, not yet. Almost, but not quite. They can't control loss-leaders, pre-owned pricing, multi-buy offers, or competitive pricing, and franchises with buying power can still occasionally negotiate mass purchase discounts.

    I just think taking what few variables there are out of the equation is ultimately going to create a system that's open to abuse and not at all in our favour.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    it may, but people most likely wouldnt stand for it

    people keep citing this all important second hand market, but lets be honest, you save a fiver on recent games for something thats already been owned and played. it's hardly going to bankrupt a generation of gamers to lose that in order to give the developers the money they actually deserve


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    Helix wrote: »
    it may, but people most likely wouldnt stand for it

    They won't have any option beyond paying or not playing. Taking the PC game example, every time Ubisoft or EA have brought in some new and innovatively infuriating form of DRM or after sale charge recently, it's been met with a chorus of complaints without any real impact on sales. People still bought Assassin's Creed, people still bought Spore, people are still buying FIFA.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    You get 90% of the game on the disc available for 50% of the price and people still complain...its a brave new world!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,840 ✭✭✭Greyfox


    Helix wrote: »
    it may, but people most likely wouldnt stand for it

    people keep citing this all important second hand market, but lets be honest, you save a fiver on recent games for something thats already been owned and played. it's hardly going to bankrupt a generation of gamers to lose that in order to give the developers the money they actually deserve

    Nonsense, if you look on adverts.ie, amazon and ebay you normally save a fortune buying games 2nd hand rather then new, also a lot of people enjoy browsing through the 2nd hand section in shops as sometimes you can get a real bargain.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,732 ✭✭✭Magill


    Digital distribution is bad news for you southerners :D

    I really dont see consoles going down that road for quite a while tho, there are still parts of this country that don't have even the lowest spec Broadband and this is suppose to be one of the more advanced countries, unlike the PC there is still huge numbers of people that dont have access to the internet that play console games. With games becoming increasingly large in terms of data, retailers will still be the main method of distribution for quite a while. I personally prefer hardcopies of my games anyway and the idea of having to download 20-30gb's to play one game really doesnt sound pretty, even on my 20meg line.

    Its the 1 or 2 year old games that i'd search for when browsing used section, usually you'll get it for a tenner or more less than buying a new copy, and if your like me and buy 2 or 3 games at time... it adds up and is certainly not peanuts. You also tend to find games that aren't available brand new aswel.

    And to say that you cant understand why some1 would pay a fiver less for a used game.... are you ****ing serious ? LOL, a fiver is a fiver, maybe your some sort of big shot that likes paying more for the exact same product.. but some of us dont think throwing away money is a good idea.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    Greyfox wrote: »
    Nonsense, if you look on adverts.ie, amazon and ebay you normally save a fortune buying games 2nd hand rather then new, also a lot of people enjoy browsing through the 2nd hand section in shops as sometimes you can get a real bargain.

    And you still get a bargain, itll still be cheaper than gamestop. The crux of the issue is their greed


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,840 ✭✭✭Greyfox


    Helix wrote: »
    And you still get a bargain, itll still be cheaper than gamestop. The crux of the issue is their greed

    I believe your been very naive to call gamestop greedy as all succesful businesses are out to make as much profit as possible. If people don't like it their free to shop elsewhere


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    Greyfox wrote: »
    I believe your been very naive to call gamestop greedy as all succesful businesses are out to make as much profit as possible. If people don't like it their free to shop elsewhere

    Im not naieve at all. Had they agreed to give publishers a cut like they shouldve, this wouldnt be happening. Its legalised piracy


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,440 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    Helix wrote: »
    Its legalised piracy

    Considering according to software licensing laws selling second hand games is pretty much illegal the legality is pretty much in question and I'd say it's only the strength that chains like Gamestop have that keeps it legal. You take us to court for selling second hand games we stop stocking your products. Nintendo won court cases in japan about second hand games sales whch makes them partially illegal in japan iirc. This was before the games selling chains had such pulling power.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,781 ✭✭✭amen


    enter a code from the manual the first time you play a game to make it work

    been there done that in late 80's/early 90's

    didn't really work out then


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,869 ✭✭✭Grumpypants


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Considering according to software licensing laws selling second hand games is pretty much illegal the legality is pretty much in question and I'd say it's only the strength that chains like Gamestop have that keeps it legal. You take us to court for selling second hand games we stop stocking your products. Nintendo won court cases in japan about second hand games sales whch makes them partially illegal in japan iirc. This was before the games selling chains had such pulling power.

    Thats the catch the publishers need the Gamestores. Someone like Gamestop has so much power its like when Wall mart get bands to change album covers, they dont like it but they know the only other option will cost them a fortune.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Thats the catch the publishers need the Gamestores. Someone like Gamestop has so much power its like when Wall mart get bands to change album covers, they dont like it but they know the only other option will cost them a fortune.
    Thus publishers have two choices, either use the legal action and make second hand commercial sales illegal due to EULA enforcement OR they reduce the value of the second hand market through incentives such as Project Ten Dollar and restrictions such as the Online Pass.

    Personally I'm glad it's the latter solution for now, perhaps that may be enough to convince the retailers to come to some form of agreement with publishers.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 815 ✭✭✭animaal


    Put yourself in the boots of a manager at EA. Every year we add minor updates to the game, and straight away, used copies of the previous one drops to a price that people are willing to pay for it (3 or 4 quid). We won't create games that people will want to keep. If only we could find a way to increase the price of used games to a level that most people won't pay. Surely some of them would buy new copies instead.

    It's legal, and if I was an EA shareholder I'd probably be impressed. But as a gamer, what do I get in return for sacrificing the trade-in value of the new game I'm buying? Does it make games cheaper? Is it more convenient?

    EA is extracting more money from the people who use its products. It's not much different to the IRFU raising ticket prices, or the Government increasing taxes on drink, or burgers being sold for an arm and a leg at Oxegen. Of course they can do it, but why would any consumer think "good on them"?

    P.S. The "legalised piracy" argument is rubbish. The state enforces criminal law to prevent duplication of copyrighted content. The state doesn't involve itself in civil matters relating to which person is allowed to read a book or play a game that's been sold (or licensed through a contract that the "purchaser" hasn't signed or even seen).


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    animaal wrote: »
    Put yourself in the boots of a manager at EA. Every year we add minor updates to the game, and straight away, used copies of the previous one drops to a price that people are willing to pay for it (3 or 4 quid). We won't create games that people will want to keep. If only we could find a way to increase the price of used games to a level that most people won't pay. Surely some of them would buy new copies instead.
    Well first off if I was a "manager" who thought that I clearly wouldn't know anything about my job. The updates are not minor and any software developer or artist will be able to confirm that. These "updates" cost a considerable amount of time and money yet the sales certainly make it worth their while.
    animaal wrote: »
    It's legal, and if I was an EA shareholder I'd probably be impressed. But as a gamer, what do I get in return for sacrificing the trade-in value of the new game I'm buying? Does it make games cheaper? Is it more convenient?
    You're not entitled to trade that game in so you're entitled to nothing extra.
    animaal wrote: »
    EA is extracting more money from the people who use its products. It's not much different to the IRFU raising ticket prices, or the Government increasing taxes on drink, or burgers being sold for an arm and a leg at Oxegen. Of course they can do it, but why would any consumer think "good on them"?
    Bull****. EA offer a product, one which MANY people are perfectly happy to purchase at the price they set, they don't have their money "extracted". Personally I think the people who buy it ever year are insane but that doesn't mean I don't understand their excitement when the latest version of their favourite game is released.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    animaal wrote: »
    P.S. The "legalised piracy" argument is rubbish. The state enforces criminal law to prevent duplication of copyrighted content. The state doesn't involve itself in civil matters relating to which person is allowed to read a book or play a game that's been sold (or licensed through a contract that the "purchaser" hasn't signed or even seen).

    whether you download or buy second hand, the developer doesnt see a penny

    to them theres no difference


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    in fact

    id say second hand game sales cost the industry more than piracy. with piracy you cant guarantee the person wouldve bought the game, with second hand sales you can, coz they did, so its a sale lost 100% of the time


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,540 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    animaal wrote: »
    EA is extracting more money from the people who use its products.

    If your buy a game second hand you only using their products, you still not one of their customers as they never got any money on it in the first place.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    topic's been through here before and i've weighed in. (see: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056005411)


    But i reiterate it with added personal touch that after sitting down to watch a production meeting of an iranian film director who made a film for £250,000 and wont get shown in any cinema outside a small number of arthouses across europe, the IFI in Ireland and the festival run over the next six months, he has ear marked that in five years time he will not only make back his budget but a profit on top of that. And this is a film that is not garnering any success stories with audience or critics, its blatantly average.

    And thats standard in the industry.

    Compared to the games industry where at the moment a video game in five years time unless it garnered huge critical success will be worthless to the publisher or developer. There's no resale, intellectual property comes with an imense price tag of development of new properties and we have a 2nd hand industry that is so overzealous that it has invaded the high street.

    Compared to DVD/books etc that someone named earlier where you dont get HMV selling 2nd hand dvds beside the new releases.

    Or compared to the car industry where the resale can be done back through the manufacterer for services benefits and a cut of the sale.


    yeah the games industry has some serious economic issues to sort out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Considering according to software licensing laws selling second hand games is pretty much illegal the legality is pretty much in question and I'd say it's only the strength that chains like Gamestop have that keeps it legal. You take us to court for selling second hand games we stop stocking your products. Nintendo won court cases in japan about second hand games sales whch makes them partially illegal in japan iirc. This was before the games selling chains had such pulling power.

    This is the one part that really annoys me.....in order to read the EULA I must buy the product only to find out I didn't in fact buy "the product", rather a non-transferable licence to use the product.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,869 ✭✭✭Grumpypants


    Helix wrote: »
    whether you download or buy second hand, the developer doesnt see a penny

    to them theres no difference

    Well there is a difference to them if the pirated games are played online as it increases there cost base. Second hand games while they get no money from the sale it doesnt cost them a sinlge penny extra to host them online. So thats a huge difference. MW2 was piracted at least 1 million times thats a possible 1 million players Activision need to host online thats a huge cost.

    The publishers claiming that second hand users going on line costs them a fortune and that is why they have to charge is not true. That is why im against an online charge but not against a charge over the full game being bought second hand. If they act fairly ill suppoort them.



    And just a note to everyone that EULA in your manual is NOT LEGALLY BINDING. It has the same legal standing as me posting you a sealed letter that says inside if you open this letter i own your house. If when you are installing the game they ask you to tick a box that is legally binding.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Well there is a difference to them if the pirated games are played online as it increases there cost base. Second hand games while they get no money from the sale it doesnt cost them a sinlge penny extra to host them online. So thats a huge difference. MW2 was piracted at least 1 million times thats a possible 1 million players Activision need to host online thats a huge cost.
    Incorrect, EA use their own servers for hosting server side content. While the game itself is P2P that doesn't mean that all the info is.
    The publishers claiming that second hand users going on line costs them a fortune and that is why they have to charge is not true. That is why im against an online charge but not against a charge over the full game being bought second hand. If they act fairly ill suppoort them.
    I haven't seen (m)any publishers say this, what I do see them pointing out is the lost revenue from second hand sales though. Tackling online play on games which are played heavily online is the best way to get at second hand sales though given that retailers won't play ball.
    And just a note to everyone that EULA in your manual is NOT LEGALLY BINDING. It has the same legal standing as me posting you a sealed letter that says inside if you open this letter i own your house. If when you are installing the game they ask you to tick a box that is legally binding.
    Some of us have made that point constantly while also pointing out that it is legal in the US as of recently. I think it's almost a guarantee that something similar will be brought in in Europe at some point in the near future though.

    Also, I'm surprised this hasn't been posted in the thread yet. :pac:

    981438957_vPpv5-L.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite





    And just a note to everyone that EULA in your manual is NOT LEGALLY BINDING. It has the same legal standing as me posting you a sealed letter that says inside if you open this letter i own your house. If when you are installing the game they ask you to tick a box that is legally binding.

    I guess that depends on where you live perhaps?

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/the-end-of-used-major-ruling-upholds-tough-software-licenses.ars


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    Well there is a difference to them if the pirated games are played online as it increases there cost base.


    in order to play a pirated ea sports game online now you need to buy an online pass though


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    And just a note to everyone that EULA in your manual is NOT LEGALLY BINDING. It has the same legal standing as me posting you a sealed letter that says inside if you open this letter i own your house. If when you are installing the game they ask you to tick a box that is legally binding.


    except they say in the EULA that if you dont agree with the terms, bring the game back for a refund

    actually has anyone tried that? buy a game new, play it for a week, then bring it back to the shop and say "im terribly sorry, but i read the EULA and simply cant agree to it, i'd like a refund please"

    might try this for ****s and giggles


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 28,633 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shiminay


    First of all, in the interest of transparency, I am an employee of Boards.ie and we have an advertising deal with Electronic Arts. So EA helps to pay my wages. I also get copies of some of their games for review purposes (including the copy of FIFA 11 I have at home which does include an online code). I say this just so that no one tries to pull me up on it later :)

    I was fortunate enough to have a chat with a chap called Kieron Gaynor recently who's a producer for Sony (involved in the new Move game called The Fight amongst other things). We finished up an interview and we were just shooting the breeze about the games industry in general and he made the following point:

    How much does a new game cost today? Let's say €50. How much do these games cost to develop? Millions.

    How much did a game on the NES cost 20 odd years ago? £30 which is €38 and change. How much did these games cost to develop? Thousands.

    So Games production has seen a thousand fold development cost increase and we've seen a €12 price increase in the end product. I'd say the developers and publishers are being pretty generous even when you take into account the vast increase in sheer numbers of product being shipped and sold in comparison to 20 years ago (i.e. bigger sales at lower profits per individual item).

    Now I hadn't thought of that before, but it's absolutely correct and you know what, being fair, we're far from being ripped off at any stage of the process. I'll expand...

    Online services cost a fair bit of money to implement and maintain. It's expected to be a part of the game and I don't think that's an unfair expectation. However, going back to my previous point, back in the day there was no online anything for games and when the intertrons came along, in the last 10 years it's become a key component to games. There was always going to be the initial rush to absorb this new found tech into gaming - games have always pushed the envelope in terms of tech I think we can agree. However, in the rush to add online play into everything, was the cost of it properly addressed? I don't know if any technological revolution has ever caught on as fast and with as much enthusiasm as the Internet. It's really hard to think through to the potential problems and issues you're going to face in 10 years time for the decisions you make today (believe me, I know. I walk this line every day :D)

    People were outraged at the thought of having to pay Microsoft for the use of XBox Live Gold accounts and I was one of them, but tbh, the value you get out of it is astounding. It works, and it works very well. I can't recall ever having a big problem with it in terms of uptime and lack of service. Similarly with a game like FIFA 11 (which I have at home, but haven't had a chance to play yet), the game is so popular that you are spending serious money in getting it's servers up and running to maintain all of it and the bandwidth requirements to push all the data out are probably astronomical (as well as continuing support for the previous game which a lot of people will still be playing). All this costs a lot of money. That means less profits. If you're a huge publishing company like EA or Activision or Ubisoft or anyone, you set a goal for each product of what your minimum profit has to be in order to keep producing the game (similarly for any sort of publishing, be it film, music, print, etc). This is big business, lets never loose sight of that. We're talking Billions of dollars.

    So gaming companies are seeing a big fall in profits because of second hand sales. The pic posted earlier shows just how much Game-Stop made from used sales and jill_valentine above also makes the point that without second-hand sales, a lot of these shops would have to close as once again, they wouldn't be making enough profit for it to be worth their while. Now here's the tricky part - each party needs the other to do well. We just don't have the facilities or services to make all gaming digital distribution only in Ireland and we're a rich "first world" country. We will never fully move to online shopping as there's something quite enjoyable about going to a shop and browsing through the new releases and holding something physical and tangible in your hands. That said, I've managed to get over it and pretty much buy all my games online now, but I am an early adopter in terms of internet and technology and far from an average consumer. So the Games publishers and Games Shops need one another but are constantly trying to maximise how they make money out of one another. Now you see content being created exclusively for these game shops for pre-sales (again, a trick EA has embraced whole-heartedly).

    So going back to the profits, because that's what it's all about at the end of the day...

    Publishers have been exploring many different models for how this thing can work. Activision does very well with the subscription based model for World of Warcraft and so that's become the standard model for all MMO type games. EA spotted a nice trick in offering additional "realism" to FIFA (and I'd imagine other EA Sports titles) in charging a little extra to give you real-world stats and updates. In an effort to take a cut of this massive used (console) games sales business, publishers are looking at this Activation Code for online stuff - this just brings them up to the same level of the PC gaming. The CD-Key was introduced to pc gaming (and indeed most PC software) with anti-piracy measures in mind as well as second hand sales (because it's so much easier to copy a PC game). Consoles are the darlings of the gaming publishers world. They're accessible to the most non-technical of customer, they've turned gaming into a hobby for everyone and not just the nerds, they're difficult to pirate and easy to control. Who wouldn't love that? The PC market shrinks more and more every years despite it, from a technical standpoint, being the superior gaming platform in every way imaginable (ignoring the hundreds of euro you need to spend every few years keeping a gaming PC bleeding edge, but that's a sickness us PC people need to learn to live with :)).

    This second-hand thing though has clearly been bugging the publishers and is eating into the profits from their golden console goose and so action had to be taken! What have they picked? The online bit. Why have they picked it? Cause it's the biggest on-going expense of any game and is essentially where they loose the most money on a second-hand game. Is it fair to the second-hand buyer? Not really IMO, but I understand it. Is it fair to the second-hand retailer? Certainly not, unless they get smart and strike a deal to bulk buy activation codes at source and pass them on to customers at half price or come to some other arrangement with the publishers. Is it fair to the publisher? They certainly don't think so, it's eating their profits up and that's what it's all about for them (as with any business).

    In all this chain of commerce, a lot of people are directing their ire at the "man at the top" and that's not unreasonable. It's their decision to implement this change, but it's a decision influenced by the actions of the other links in the chain and so whilst you don't agree with it, you have to at least acknowledge that if you buy second-hand or you pirate games, you're a part of the issue.

    If you buy new games all the time, then you're not being affected by this cause you're getting the activation codes included anyway.

    So this is the "least bad" solution to a current problem. It looks a lot worse than it possibly is as it just reeks of the big business trying to squeeze every bit of money out of you that they can, but you know what? That's the way *every* business works :)

    (ps: I hadn't intended to make this long a post, my thanks and apologies if you've read it all :))


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 815 ✭✭✭animaal


    gizmo wrote: »
    You're not entitled to trade that game in so you're entitled to nothing extra.

    Is this like those labels on multipack cans of Coke that say something like "Part of a multipack - not for individual resale"? At most, this is a civil matter, one that hasn't been tested in this jurisdiction. Only a very naive person could be certain that such a claim would be upheld if challenged. The fact that games are openly traded everywhere from Xtravision to Adverts.ie without being challenged speaks volumes.
    gizmo wrote: »
    Bull****. EA offer a product, one which MANY people are perfectly happy to purchase at the price they set, they don't have their money "extracted". Personally I think the people who buy it ever year are insane but that doesn't mean I don't understand their excitement when the latest version of their favourite game is released.

    The point I made was that EA's pricing change is simply revenue maximisation, and is no more admirable than (for example) IRFU upping ticket prices, or increased price of burgers at a concert. How is that Bull****? You forgot to address the point. If EA has a plan to donate the extra profits to charity, point it out and I'll say "good for them". Otherwise, I consider this no better than any other organisation's price increases to maximise profit. In fact it's worse if they're imposing new restrictions on me.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    animaal wrote: »
    The point I made was that EA's pricing change is simply revenue maximisation, and is no more admirable than (for example) IRFU upping ticket prices, or increased price of burgers at a concert. How is that Bull****? You forgot to address the point. If EA has a plan to donate the extra profits to charity, point it out and I'll say "good for them". Otherwise, I consider this no better than any other organisation's price increases to maximise profit. In fact it's worse if they're imposing new restrictions on me.

    EA hasn't upped its price....the game costs the same as before and has all the online capability as before. If I buy a new game from a shop, where is the price hike?


Advertisement