By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - EA's Strategy to Counter Used Games Sales

Onyxmeth on 27 February 2010
Hawk said:
Onyxmeth said:

I'm fairly sure I made a good argument about EA's actions in regards to this, an original argument mind you, and it's gotten consistently ignored. Maybe everyone has me blocked on that program someone cooked up a while back. It's odd that at one point though, Kylie and Akvod were able to see what I was typing, or at least the portion they felt comfortable responding back to.

::chuckle::  Sorry Onyx.  As much as I like you, I for some reason have just completely looked over your posts in this thread.  If you wouldn't mind summarizing what you've said, I'd love to read it.  As opposed to weeding back through this thread.  You don't have to of course, but I do respect your views and am interested.  Sorry, heh.

Last August EA did this exact same thing with Madden 10. Since Madden doesn't have extra maps to offer though, they had a code to unlock a game mode called Online Franchise. This was one of the key new features in the game, and was a natural evolution of the Online League mode they created in Madden 09, which happened to be free and on the disc. It's actually advertised on the back of the box of Madden 10 in the features list to help sell the game. What isn't advertised on the box is that only new buyers with a code packaged in get the mode. Everyone else has to pay $10. To top it off, EA forgot to put the codes in with the Australian versions of the game, and in the PAL versions, the codes didn't unlock everything they said they were going to. So this brings up two problems in the future:

1. From Madden 10 we learn that EA can advertise a brand new feature to help sell it's game, a defining feature mind you, and then remove it from the disc to use for it's fight against used game sales. Now a buyer deciding whether to buy used or new doesn't even know about this code unless they frequent online forums and heard about it, so it's not even a choice they were allowed to make. They could unsuspectingly buy used figuring the feature is there, get home, pop the disc in, and be in for a wicked surprise.

2. There can be blunders in manufacturing and things like codes can be lost or have printing errors. EA has shown an inability already to keep it consistent and it can happen again. This is the link for how EA fixed it for those customers. It involves a long arduous process to get a code back. Just so everyone knows how EA treats "their" buyers. 

The real issue here isn't that a couple of extra maps may or may not be on the disc. The real issue is these maps may have once been a portion of the game and were removed to further this agenda. That's how it happened with Madden. It may not be how it is with Bad Company 2, but if this feature continues to catch on and have support, then we may very well get more Madden-like situations in EA's products, where an advertised feature or mode you would expect in game is all of a sudden left out and used as a "bonus" for new game buyers. It could lead to a game like the new Medal of Honor to require codes to unlock certain online game modes, like capture the flag or whatever, and be day and date with the game. That could be the new "bonus".



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



Around the Network
Hawk on 27 February 2010
Onyxmeth said:

Last August EA did this exact same thing with Madden 10. Since Madden doesn't have extra maps to offer though, they had a code to unlock a game mode called Online Franchise. This was one of the key new features in the game, and was a natural evolution of the Online League mode they created in Madden 09, which happened to be free and on the disc. It's actually advertised on the back of the box of Madden 10 in the features list to help sell the game. What isn't advertised on the box is that only new buyers with a code packaged in get the mode. Everyone else has to pay $10. To top it off, EA forgot to put the codes in with the Australian versions of the game, and in the PAL versions, the codes didn't unlock everything they said they were going to. So this brings up two problems in the future:

1. From Madden 10 we learn that EA can advertise a brand new feature to help sell it's game, a defining feature mind you, and then remove it from the disc to use for it's fight against used game sales. Now a buyer deciding whether to buy used or new doesn't even know about this code unless they frequent online forums and heard about it, so it's not even a choice they were allowed to make. They could unsuspectingly buy used figuring the feature is there, get home, pop the disc in, and be in for a wicked surprise.

2. There can be blunders in manufacturing and things like codes can be lost or have printing errors. EA has shown an inability already to keep it consistent and it can happen again. This is the link for how EA fixed it for those customers. It involves a long arduous process to get a code back. Just so everyone knows how EA treats "their" buyers. 

The real issue here isn't that a couple of extra maps may or may not be on the disc. The real issue is these maps may have once been a portion of the game and were removed to further this agenda. That's how it happened with Madden. It may not be how it is with Bad Company 2, but if this feature continues to catch on and have support, then we may very well get more Madden-like situations in EA's products, where an advertised feature or mode you would expect in game is all of a sudden left out and used as a "bonus" for new game buyers. It could lead to a game like the new Medal of Honor to require codes to unlock certain online game modes, like capture the flag or whatever, and be day and date with the game. That could be the new "bonus".

::nod::  I won't argue that.  I won't argue that content that normally would have been included on the disk or part of the core game could become 'bonus' or 'extra' content.  Even if that is the case on a certain game, or even becomes the norm, I don't have a problem with that.  As long as they follow the model of all that content being no charge to the person who bought the game new.

Kasz seemed to try to beat to death the notion that the 'extra' content is not, or will not be in future games, 'extra' content.  Yeah, I get that, and see that could happen.  But, in this model being used for BBC2, it doesn't matter either way to me, same game content or extra game content still will be no extra charge to the new game buyer.

I am all for a new game buyer just having to pay the new game price and nothing more and then the used game buyer having to pay the publisher/developer for portions of the game.



Tag: Hawk - Reluctant Dark Messiah (provided by fkusumot)

Hawk on 27 February 2010

Oh, and yeah, I think it would be good of EA to advertise that said features are extra cost if bought used. But I don't fault them for not saying it, or think they have to. They are advertising it correctly, when you buy that game from them new, all those features come with it.

And mistakes of no codes shipping in the box and such I don't see as an argument against the practice. I see that as an issue of them having to improve their execution. If they continue to consistently not follow through with delivering what they say they will, yeah, that would be an issue.  But at least they did something about it, they didn't just leave people dry.



Tag: Hawk - Reluctant Dark Messiah (provided by fkusumot)

Kasz216 on 27 February 2010
Hawk said:
Kasz216 said:
KylieDog said:

This is why it is stupid to compare the video game market to others.

 

Used book market?  Barely exists, most books are so cheap they are better off throwing away then going to the effort of re-selling.  CDs?  I presume you mean music.  The second hand market again isn't as big as the used games market due to low CD entry price, music is also sold digitally.  In fact digital sales are bigger than CDs and no used MP3 market I am afraid. 

 

Video games are 99% sold at retail for console games, used sales hurt the market a lot more than music.

 

Your examples are stupid, if you are not sure you like a game just don't use the code until you are sure.  Hell, even rent a game if you're unsure, is what people been doing for the last 20 years.

You act as if Itunes was always around.

Back before Mp3's became big the used CD market was MUCH larger then the Used game market.   Low CD price is exactly why the used game market would be MORE important to new sales.

It's clear your diagreement with the general point is your general lack of understanding the used/new dynamic.

 

Kasz216, so, the used CD market was larger before, than it is now?  So you do not see a present day smaller used market has not hurt the industry?

You do know Music sales are smaller then they've ever been even including digitial sales.



Kasz216 on 27 February 2010
Hawk said:
Malachi said:
Kasz216 said:
Malachi said:

Kasz, the reason why most of the moron on this thread that see it as a good thing look at it by thinking about the buyer of used game, not the seller. What they fail to see(most likely due to advanced mental retardation) is that by screwing the used game market they are actually screwing the seller(the consumer who buy new) not the buyer of used game -Afterall if there is no used game market that market has no consumer so if you kill that market which consumer is the most hurt? The nonexistent one or the one who actually buy the game new?- by reduction the value of what he buy. 

It is say that a car lose almost half it's value the moment you take it out of the dealer parking lot, in the same way that game is going to lose 15$ of it's value the moment the buyer put it in and unlock that content. Again, in this scenerio, which one is the most hurt? The actual consumer or the hypothetical used buyer?

That why no other "industry" is dumb enough to get rid of the used market, because the people hurt the most by its dead are the one who actually buy and pay full price for your product. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

Calling people names is harsh... but it very much does reduce the value to the new buyer... not add it when it's day one stuff. (Or anything nearby that date that obviously could of just been put on the disc fairly easily.

Some people prefer to call dumb kid "special", I don't.

Whatever the content was supposed to be there or not doesn't matter, what matter is if it hurt the resell value of the product then your are hurting the orginal buyer, your consumers, the one that keep you in business and then they gonna decide to not be your consumers anymore and you gonna find yourself having to lay off another third of your workforce.

What I think you and Kasz216 are ignoring is that the used game buyers will not simply drop off the planet.  As Kasz was saying in his post:

"Between a 60 dollar game and a 55 dollar used game... 5 dollars isn't much for the average person."

This of course cannot be proved, but I believe more used game buyers would buy new and become EA customers than original EA customers would be lost.

Not only can it not be proved... the data is against you on it.  You know who mostly buys used?   Poor people. 

Poor people don't have the money to buy stuff, and most of these sales are invariably going to be at prices 15 dollars or less lower then the orginal sale price.  People aren't going to pay 15+ more dollars they can't even afford and don't think a game is worth anyway.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 27 February 2010
Hawk said:
Onyxmeth said:

Last August EA did this exact same thing with Madden 10. Since Madden doesn't have extra maps to offer though, they had a code to unlock a game mode called Online Franchise. This was one of the key new features in the game, and was a natural evolution of the Online League mode they created in Madden 09, which happened to be free and on the disc. It's actually advertised on the back of the box of Madden 10 in the features list to help sell the game. What isn't advertised on the box is that only new buyers with a code packaged in get the mode. Everyone else has to pay $10. To top it off, EA forgot to put the codes in with the Australian versions of the game, and in the PAL versions, the codes didn't unlock everything they said they were going to. So this brings up two problems in the future:

1. From Madden 10 we learn that EA can advertise a brand new feature to help sell it's game, a defining feature mind you, and then remove it from the disc to use for it's fight against used game sales. Now a buyer deciding whether to buy used or new doesn't even know about this code unless they frequent online forums and heard about it, so it's not even a choice they were allowed to make. They could unsuspectingly buy used figuring the feature is there, get home, pop the disc in, and be in for a wicked surprise.

2. There can be blunders in manufacturing and things like codes can be lost or have printing errors. EA has shown an inability already to keep it consistent and it can happen again. This is the link for how EA fixed it for those customers. It involves a long arduous process to get a code back. Just so everyone knows how EA treats "their" buyers. 

The real issue here isn't that a couple of extra maps may or may not be on the disc. The real issue is these maps may have once been a portion of the game and were removed to further this agenda. That's how it happened with Madden. It may not be how it is with Bad Company 2, but if this feature continues to catch on and have support, then we may very well get more Madden-like situations in EA's products, where an advertised feature or mode you would expect in game is all of a sudden left out and used as a "bonus" for new game buyers. It could lead to a game like the new Medal of Honor to require codes to unlock certain online game modes, like capture the flag or whatever, and be day and date with the game. That could be the new "bonus".

::nod::  I won't argue that.  I won't argue that content that normally would have been included on the disk or part of the core game could become 'bonus' or 'extra' content.  Even if that is the case on a certain game, or even becomes the norm, I don't have a problem with that.  As long as they follow the model of all that content being no charge to the person who bought the game new.

Kasz seemed to try to beat to death the notion that the 'extra' content is not, or will not be in future games, 'extra' content.  Yeah, I get that, and see that could happen.  But, in this model being used for BBC2, it doesn't matter either way to me, same game content or extra game content still will be no extra charge to the new game buyer.

I am all for a new game buyer just having to pay the new game price and nothing more and then the used game buyer having to pay the publisher/developer for portions of the game.

For directly right now... it can be used as a way to get around people like you who only cares about customer rights when it's your particular rights.



Hawk on 27 February 2010
Kasz216 said:

You do know Music sales are smaller then they've ever been even including digitial sales.

Crap, that was an open mouth insert foot statement by me wasn't it.  I am not a big music buff and didn't even realize.  You are certainly right there.  ::shrug::  ok, some support for you.  I'll have to research this used market supporting the new product market more.  Though, I'm not convinced yet.



Tag: Hawk - Reluctant Dark Messiah (provided by fkusumot)

Hawk on 27 February 2010
Kasz216 said:
Hawk said:

What I think you and Kasz216 are ignoring is that the used game buyers will not simply drop off the planet.  As Kasz was saying in his post:

"Between a 60 dollar game and a 55 dollar used game... 5 dollars isn't much for the average person."

This of course cannot be proved, but I believe more used game buyers would buy new and become EA customers than original EA customers would be lost.

Not only can it not be proved... the data is against you on it.  You know who mostly buys used?   Poor people. 

Poor people don't have the money to buy stuff, and most of these sales are invariably going to be at prices 15 dollars or less lower then the orginal sale price.  People aren't going to pay 15+ more dollars they can't even afford and don't think a game is worth anyway.

You say a lot of certainties.  Where is the evidence that proves me wrong?  I'm completely open to it.  The used music market being smaller today is possibly some, thought it may also be a result of the industry going down as opposed to a contributor.  But what more do you have?

Then the other certainty, that only poor people buy used games?  I'd like to see some evidence of that beyond your say so as well.  And even at that, you say they won't pay $15 more.  Well, I am sure a significant percentage would pay the $5 more for the new one.



Tag: Hawk - Reluctant Dark Messiah (provided by fkusumot)

Hawk on 27 February 2010
Kasz216 said:
Hawk said:

::nod::  I won't argue that.  I won't argue that content that normally would have been included on the disk or part of the core game could become 'bonus' or 'extra' content.  Even if that is the case on a certain game, or even becomes the norm, I don't have a problem with that.  As long as they follow the model of all that content being no charge to the person who bought the game new.

Kasz seemed to try to beat to death the notion that the 'extra' content is not, or will not be in future games, 'extra' content.  Yeah, I get that, and see that could happen.  But, in this model being used for BBC2, it doesn't matter either way to me, same game content or extra game content still will be no extra charge to the new game buyer.

I am all for a new game buyer just having to pay the new game price and nothing more and then the used game buyer having to pay the publisher/developer for portions of the game.

For directly right now... it can be used as a way to get around people like you who only cares about customer rights when it's your particular rights.

Yes, for directly right now my friend.  I do not agree with your fighting a fair deal today, to make it favored for the consumer, just so that maybe possible future unfair moves by publishers/developers are less likely to happen.

And I am not sure what consumer right is being infringed?  No one is forced to buy the deal before them.  If paying for a game at a lower price, but without all the content someone gets when paying full price, is not good enough for you.  You are free to not buy it. 

 



Tag: Hawk - Reluctant Dark Messiah (provided by fkusumot)

MonstaMack on 27 February 2010

Yeap just ran into this.

My wife wants to play Mass Effect 2 on her 360, which is no biggie - however, The Cerebus network is linked to my gamertag and EA account. So she has to pay $15 for the DLC when in fact I have it on my very own 360 - which is the next room over.

I understand EA is in business to make money and paid a lot for Bioware, but they should let us share the code if we have some proof we are in the same house hold.



It's just that simple.