EA Charging $10 Online Multiplayer Fee for Used Sports Games

32

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

allie_valenza

I'm not very keen on computer games. I don't let my child play them because most of them are violent and I think that it's not very appropriate to expose children to such things. Plus, it's weird to see him play online hockey everyday and thinking that he doesn't really know how a hockey pool looks in reality. Games affect their social life!

avatar

mclay

It is tied to your gamertag... so even if you buy the game new and you have multiple people in your house that play IE children, spouce roommates what ever everyone else needs to purchase the pass to play. 4 people in the house that plays games = $60+ for new game + approx $12 per pass in canada = $96+ for all to have access to one full game... + on the xbox you subscription fees for the month.

Even Microsoft does not say well in windows to have another person log onto your computer you need to pay an extra $20... I will NOT support this move by any company... and if need be I guess I will have to stop playing. I own over 150 games on three platforms... Xbox, Wii and the PS3... half atleat I purchased new.

avatar

winmaster

@Mark17 

 98. OWNERSHIP OF SOUL

Congratulations on making it this far in the EULA. It must have taken you several days of mindless reading to do so. As a reward, we are going to disclose that accepting this EULA transfers ownership  of your soul to Electronic Arts Inc. After you die, you will be condemned to make games for us for the rest of eternity. Enjoy your Electronic Arts purchase! 

 

PS Maximum PC:  When I reply to a comment, it should be posted as a reply even if I have to log in between clicking "Reply" and actually posting the reply. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

avatar

knighttoday

I am not your typical gamer. I'm 58 and have been gaming for about 9 years now. I also have little to no desire to play on-line. But I can tell you that I've almost completely ceased all gaming due to EA and it's consistent greed to make more $. I've already heard all the cry's about ripping off games but to me that is just more BS. Sure there are people ripping off software and most likely always will be. It the nature of the human animal and if EA thinks it can regulate hontesy into this species they are smokin far too much crack these days.

Gaming used to be fun and a great way to see what technology can do. I am my ilk will find other ways to experience new technology and let the game industry kill itself off or cater to those who do not object to wasting their or their poarents money.

avatar

To0nces

This isn't a big deal in all honesty. Us PC gamers have been dealing with this sort of stuff for a long time. Having a game tied to an online account is nothing new. That's all this really is and people are looking at the headlines and getting bent out of shape. All this is doing is adding your game's serial key to an online account. In fact, this is more forgiving than PC games because PC games you can't play online or offline without your account in most cases, and you can't buy a new key for 10 dollars. You'd be forced to buy the entire game brand new all over again; no 7 day trial or anything. So the used PC game market is pretty much impossible with new PC titles. It still thrives on old games that just have serial keys and nothing else.

It's a bit jarring for console-only people I understand. But used game sales is the new "PC game piracy" witch hunt, so you're going to be seeing a lot more of this. I play console games as well, though I usually don't buy used. I can get games new for a substantial discount at amazon so I don't see the need. But for someone who buys a lot of used games, this could potentially be a big roadblock down the road as this catches on.

PC gamers have to deal with stupid online at all times DRM, and console gamers are going to have to deal with no online multiplayer for used games unless they pay companies more cash for a key.

avatar

IFLATLINEI

I dont have a problem with this. Seems fair to me. Get 7 days to determine if the games worth playing online. What I do have a problem with is Gamestops inflated value applied to used games. This will cut into their share for sure because otherwise people are just going to buy new. So dont look at this as an attack so much on the customer as its an attack on Gamestop.

avatar

dj-anon

So make gamestop pay and not us.

avatar

I Jedi

To anyone here, who says that E.A.’s practices are bullshit,  and that they will stop buying E.A. titles needs to stfu. I am not a supporter of E.A., and I know they are money-cashing hogs, who will stop it nothing to get the most out of their customers. With that said, let me go on to why I think everyone here needs to stop bitching.

E.A., like all game publishers, are first a business and second a gaming studio. These people have mouths to feed, rent to pay, and yes, taxes to pay, just like the rest of us. We may think that the practices they enforce upon us, such as DRM and tax-fees, like this, are utter bullshit, but we must remember that these companies are only trying to protect their investments.

We do NOT have to agree with these companies’ practices, but we also do not have to continue to buy and support their games. If you think that you can run a gaming studio better, I suggest you take business and law and gaming design/theory, and then attempt to do it your own way. Therefore, let me be sincere in saying that I understand your anger, but please do not complain about it, go off on a rampage to your friends for 10 minutes, and then give up your bandwagon pursuit when the next Bad Company game comes out.

All of us have a right to complain, but be sure that you offer solutions, or try to make solutions to problems that the whole of you are facing.

avatar

aviaggio

OK, first off it's not like the gaming industry is on the verge of financial collapse or that EA executives are going to bed without supper. The bottom line is that they want to generate more revenue and do NOTHING for it. They are taking something that previously cost nothing and are now going to charge for it, and at the same time destroy the used game market.

There are a number of problems with their scheme. First off, consumers are historically VERY reluctant to pay for things they are used to getting for free. Trying to get people to pay for online content that should be included with the game is going to fail.

Second, there are millions of gamers that buy games only because they know they can resell them. If they now won't be able to resell them, or get a fraction of what they used to get for them, they are going to buy a lot fewer games. And those that buy used games aren't likely to spend full price either. There is a reason they buy used games in the first place. Trying to force them to pay more than they usually do is also going to fail.

If they want people to buy more of their games how about making better games that aren't 99% rehashes of previous years? Maybe put some actual EFFORT into your games to warrant spending $60? No. They want to keep releasing the same crap year after year and strong arm us into paying full price for it. Well guess what EA, most people just aren't gonna do it.

 

avatar

I Jedi

Did you listen to what I had to say at all, or did you just decide to ramble on about how businesses are greedy, which is WHAT I WAS STATING… I clearly said that a gaming studio’s main purpose was a business first and a gaming studio second. With THAT said, I also mentioned how if we, as gamers of the PC, did not like the way things were, we had to power to change it on our own. Need it be through our own start-up gaming studios, or by making free games on the open-source platform. Almost your entire argument is a rehash of how corporations are greedy, and how I said that as well. Argue with me all you want, but businesses do have a right to treat THEIR property anyway they want to. This is why we should read the Terms of Use beforehand, so that we aren’t mislead later on into believing certain truths we have held onto in the past. Case and point, quit bitching and do something about these types of problems: petition, creating your own gaming studio, writing letters to company CEOs, etc, etc.

avatar

To0nces

"Trying to get people to pay for online content that should be included
with the game is going to fail."

really? consoles have been making people pay for DLC that should have been included for quite some time now. Also, you only have to pay if you bought it used. People who go out and buy it new right away will never even run into this problem.

For every person vowing not to buy it, there's going to be 10 more who do buy it, and so it will never end.

avatar

FuriousDre

Nice to see things like this happen on consoles :) Should make it $25. I'm awful xD

avatar

ptick16

One reason people buy second hand games is because they can't afford to
purchase new versions of all the games they would like to have in the
first place.  Purchasing a second hand game from any publisher/developer
gains that publisher/developer recognition by the purchaser.  Thereby
making it more likely that when said purchaser decides to buy a new
game, he/she will more than likely give that publisher/developer more
consideration if they enjoyed the second hand game they purchased.  This
is a win, win situation for the publisher/developer.  The original
purchaser of any game usually sells the game for one of two reasons. 
First, they need the money to purchase a new (or new used) game. 
Second, they no longer enjoy, or play that particular game.  If no one
sold their old games, and instead let them just collect dust, who will
most likely suffer?  The publisher/developer.  An online game collecting
dust means less people available for online play.  Less people
available for online play means an early slow death to what might be an
outstanding game.  People who purchase second hand games for online play
are actually helping the publisher/developer, by keeping alive interest
in whatever game that might be.  Thereby increasing the chances of new
purchases of that particular game by others who may not have considered
it otherwise.  By punishing second hand purchasers with an additional
fee to be able to play their purchase online, when the whole reason for a
second hand purchase is to save money in the first place, is at the
least a very unfair practice.  A better solution would be for the
publisher/developer to reduce the original purchase price of their
games.  Also, after a certain period, to drastically reduce the price of
a new purchase of an old game on an accelerated timeline.  By doing
this, they would accomplish two things.  First, they would be increasing
their own profits, while at the same time more than likely taking away
purchases from the second hand stores that they can't stand.  Second,
they would be prolonging the life an any (online) game they have
available.  Fortunately for me, I can afford any new game purchase that I
desire.  I have almost every system ever made, and multiple games for
each system.  Still, I will not be purchasing any game at all from any
publisher/developer that enforces a policy such as this one.

avatar

Jox

This.

-Jox

avatar

bikerbub

sorry, double post.

avatar

bikerbub

This is what pc gamers have to go through. Wonder why piracy is through the roof? EULAs. if there was a used game market, there wouldn't be such a hesitation to buy an un-returnable PC game. Most "pirates" are responsible, and if they like the game, they buy the full copy. With the resurgence of near-full demos, i'm one to believe that piracy would be on the decline.

avatar

To0nces

I'm not going to get into a piracy debate, but I take issue with "Most pirates are responsible, and if they like the game, they buy the
full copy." Yes, maybe many people do go buy the game if they like it. But I'd hardly say that the majority who pirated it do.

avatar

Lubaru

Groan... just more money us sheep may spend. It's already bad enough that we purchase the same game with very minor tweaks (arguable I understand) every year for the same amount of dosh. When these greedy whores start charging subscription fees on top of already paid dues (eg CoD MW subscription fee on top of XBL), I might just have to take up reading.

avatar

aviaggio

Sigh... I can now add EA to the of publishers whose games I will never buy.

avatar

Founck

Looks like I'm done buying EA sports games.

avatar

Daemon

Greedy little corporate scums. Its all about gouging. Humans are stupid. Soon EULA's will require ownership of your very soul. Its the devils work.

avatar

Mark17

Actually, EULAs already require ownership of your soul. But nobody knows this because almost nobody has ever actually read one.

avatar

Peanut Fox

When I buy a boxed copy of a game.  Am I buying the game, or just a licenses to play it?  This is content that is on the disc right?

avatar

shellpc

For a pc game, its a license you're buying, just like any other software for the pc. I'm not sure for console games, but I think they're covered by First Sale doctrine and therefore are considered copies.

Otherwise how is Gamestop allowed to legally sell console games and rental stores allowed to rent them out as well? 

avatar

Peanut Fox

Well, the way EA has this scaled out.  It seems more like I'm just buying a licenses.  If one person buys a game and has access to all content, and subsequently transfers their sale to the next person.  Why then do you lose arguably core functionality?  This isn't a foot ball skin, or a special edition basket ball court paint job.  This is purchase altering content, and I have to wonder if they plan to list this information on the back of the box for people who plan to buy this game new or otherwise.  Though the same line of thinking, is it the retailer's responsibly to inform customers of title short comings or should EA put this on an obvious location on the box?

avatar

kjrviking

is the game tied to a console or gamertag? cause if its the gamertag its not as bad as the console. or is it both?

avatar

popstop785

So now if I buy a game and I want to play with a friend at his house, I will have to bring my console everytimie because the game is tied to a single console? That is completely f-ed up. More reason to boycott EA I suppose. I haven't bought anything from them in a while anyways... guess I will just keep it up and hope they go belly up one day. 

avatar

Jox

It sounds like this is just for online content.  If you bring the disc to your friend's house you should be able to play it.  You would only run into problems if the two of you want to play locally with online players, in which case you'd be stuck with playing on your console.

-Jox

avatar

cynical

My work blocks the FAQ but what happens when your Xbox red-rings? In addition to buying a new console, are you gonna get stuck with playing $10 x the amount of EA multiplayer games you own?

avatar

Peanut Fox

Looks like it's locked to a gamer tag.

avatar

To0nces

Actually its not even locked to a gamertag. This uses EA's Online Pass accounts. So it has nothing to do with the gamertag.

avatar

Craig-g

I'm not a console gamer.  Is it particularly hard to create a new gamertag just for one game on the xbox?  And then hand over the details if you sell the game?  I've had to create a gamertag for a couple of windows for live games.  I never remember the details the next time I get such a game and just create a new one each time (I tend to only play one game at a time).  I get the impression people are fairly attached to their gamertags though.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.