EA's Online Pass vs EA's Paywall

Interesting views, chaps. Love both of your shows, by the way. Here's my two pence.

Personally, I don't sell my games, but I think there's a few reason why gamers trade or sell on their games, which fly over the argument like vultures. If I do buy a pre-owned game, it'll be from ebay, where the seller is usually just a gamer chappy (or small/average retailer) like me.

The first is shelf space. The average gamer only has so much space in their dwellings to store games or any other sort of media. I think the likes of EA etc, wrongly assume that gamers are selling on because they have finished games, though that number may be high, its not always the answer.

The second, buiding on the DLC $10 argument, EA also assume that every gamer has a hard drive, when they don't. This is one major hurdle with DLC, storage, and many will be shut out, because there is no Borderlands/Gay Tony type dvd alternative guaranteed to be released.

And thirdly, while capitalism might be right inthe eyes of some (debatable, ask Michael Moore), is also a very crafty jester, that will do much to screw the customer where ever cleverly possible, within the law. From airlines who leave you stranded in an airport, to insurance companies that won't pay out when you need it most. Its the same kind of angle, to a degree. But I digress.

The real mc'coy reason behind EA's move, is them watching Activision, who take much unabashed joy in sticking it to us gamers (stupid pricing etc), and getting away with it, largely unchallenged, and because they can. Now, if EA came out tomorrow and said, 'please use Ebay or Goozex instead as an alternative,' so gamers can offload their games, without fat stores getting huge profits, I'd be more on their side. However, clearly what they are seeking to do, is replace those fat cat stores with themselves collecting that extra. This makes it all about money and the sticky corporate tentacles of greed, ready to attack and empty wallets, than the actual games being sold/traded on and gamers cutting costs, to help fund what is an ever expensive hobby.

I'm all for supporting developers and publishers, but them grubbing around for another second bite of the cherry is insulting, when it was Gamestop/Game etc, that saw a loop hole in the games market, and through their guile and infrastructure, sought to earn from it. I'm sure we all know, that in such a capitalist society, if EA created and nutured the secnd hand market first, we'd hear a very different song from them. Sour cherries and grapes, indeed. None of them gave a damn about this market, til money was being made without them. As for gamers, we are an afterthought, just a mark to be cleverly grifted. No matter how much they say they care,. its all bs really, unless your name is Capcom or Valve.

to Leon Cox
So you're saying that if I buy a Music CD that if I borrow it to my friend he should have to pay to listen to it?

Or what if I have three kids all of them have their own consoles and they have to share their games... Should I have to purchase two more codes in order for all of them to have same features of the game?

If I buy something it is mine to do as I please with it. If I bought a game and want to play it on 10 different consoles and 10 different gamer tags I should be able to without restrictions as I have paid for it

I thoroughly dislike this kind of disingenuous and mendacious accounting. So, the second had game is going to cost the new buyer £7 more, so youI will have to drop your used price by £10. It's immediately and transparently "victimised".

But that's not even how it has to, or should, work. Firstly, it's £7, not £10, you whinging bitch. And then why are you, the vendor taking the whole hit? Surely the second (and subsequent buyers) should take some of the hit. Second-hand game just got more expensive. learn to deal you whiny motherfucker. And the shop, they should take some of the hit too. So in reality, it should cost you around £4.50.

And it's an entirely reasonable £4.50 too. Because, when you mitigate your game cost down to £10 by selling your last game for £30 used, you are basically denying revenue to the publishers and the developers. And I know it's hardly fashionable to feel sorry for these guys... but if they don't make money, they won't make games... and then where will you get your supply of gear to flog (literally) down the (figurative) car boot?

And as for you Marcel. No matter how much you SAY that you can do what you like with software. It's not actually the truth. You haven't "bought" a game, you've bought a licence to use a game, and within very flexible limits of legality, that licence can be restricted in any way the vendor fells like. Sure, you can LEND your CD to a friend (he can BORROW it from you), but the minute he rips a copy of it, one or both of you are breaking the law.

Rod Todd wrote:

>
>I thoroughly dislike this kind of disingenuous
>and mendacious accounting. So, the second had
>game is going to cost the new buyer £7 more, so
>youI will have to drop your used price by £10.
>It's immediately and transparently "victimised".
>
>But that's not even how it has to, or should,
>work. Firstly, it's £7, not £10, you whinging
>bitch. And then why are you, the vendor taking
>the whole hit? Surely the second (and subsequent
>buyers) should take some of the hit. Second-hand
>game just got more expensive. learn to deal you
>whiny motherfucker. And the shop, they should
>take some of the hit too. So in reality, it
>should cost you around £4.50.
>
>And it's an entirely reasonable £4.50 too.
>Because, when you mitigate your game cost down to
>£10 by selling your last game for £30 used, you
>are basically denying revenue to the publishers
>and the developers. And I know it's hardly
>fashionable to feel sorry for these guys... but
>if they don't make money, they won't make
>games... and then where will you get your supply
>of gear to flog (literally) down the (figurative)
>car boot?

Good point Rodd, with EA going bust from not making any money from their games, it's no wonder they want to bring in the Online Pass. HOLD ON A MINUTE...

Firstly, you are indeed taking a £10 hit, please re-read what you've quoted. What I would have sold for £30, i can now only sell for £20. That's £10 lower, not £7.

Secondly the buyer IS taking the hit, but not from you. From EA.

Third? Well you mention that the retailers should take a 'hit'. Why on earth would they do that when they simply don't have to? They are in a position to buy for less from the public so they can sell for less in the store. It simply wont effect them.

And finally, the name calling... up yours.

Tbh EA do not personally create games or even give money to the Game creators, EA only PUBLISH games and take profits/royalties from the creators.

On the box of my deadspace 2 game it states that there is a multiplayer of 4-8 players but i need a pass (which i indeed do have as i bought the game brand new) this is indeed unlawful in britain as they should not include the online features as it is DLC that allows you to gain access online, further more they break the public right to license trade "those who are to buy second hand or out of package DVD/bluray/HD DVD discs are the lawful owners of ALL content on that Disc withought further royalties or contributions to the distributor or publisher" so if i buy a second hand game by EA and it says theres online included on the disc the law states that with or without a pass i automatically gain the license to ALL content on the Disc(s)

So you do, you just don't get access to the online servers that the company have provided at great cost without paying a bit for it.