As someone who doesn't play a lot of multiplayer, this doesn't bother me. However, I see how it is an issue and worry that they'll start locking out single player content to people who buy used. As someone who buys a lot of use games, I will have to keep an eye on this to see how it plays out.
Someone will sue them over this, and I think they may win. Charging for functionality that is advertised within the core game isn't something you can do easily. They'd have to find away around the fact that they're basically false advertising for anyone who buys the game used and may not know (let's face it, most people won't know) since I doubt it will be printed on the box.
It's not just a way to battle "used games" but also pirated games. I think that with Sony and Socom... they were more concerned about the blatant piracy of PSP games than they were about the used game market.
The problems is that they are also penalizing legitimate use. For Battlefield there was an activation that could be used once for extra online maps. I used this code on my husband's account assuming it could be used again on my own account. No deal. When playing on my own account with a group of dtoid people I ran into the situation of being booted from the game because I didn't have the free maps... so I now have to play BF:BC2 with my husband's account for online play.
... no longer can we lend games to a friend so they can try out an online game. No longer can people share games with others in their own house - they have to choose the one account that will play the game online.
It's too bad there is so much game piracy... it's why we can't have nice things. :(
(though I do understand the dev response and I guess they have to do it... )
The problems is that they are also penalizing legitimate use. For Battlefield there was an activation that could be used once for extra online maps. I used this code on my husband's account assuming it could be used again on my own account. No deal. When playing on my own account with a group of dtoid people I ran into the situation of being booted from the game because I didn't have the free maps... so I now have to play BF:BC2 with my husband's account for online play.
... no longer can we lend games to a friend so they can try out an online game. No longer can people share games with others in their own house - they have to choose the one account that will play the game online.
It's too bad there is so much game piracy... it's why we can't have nice things. :(
(though I do understand the dev response and I guess they have to do it... )
@ Renegade
Yeah, I think they will get sued by someone. It's America's favorite activity. But just like how Gamestop is now having to advertise that DLC listed on the box isn't applicable to used games [because they are in court over this] I think EA can and will get away with this simply because they'll enforce Gamestop to make buyers aware of this. Gamestop will have to comply because if they don't tell their customers they could wind up sued as well over consumer protection laws.
@ Elsa
It is true that this is also about piracy. But even that boils down to a very simple thing: more money. Granted, you can't legitimize piracy, but if game companies proclaim that, well, I'll take it more as their PR department putting on a nice face. Overall I still think they want to do this to either get a chunk of the used game revenue or to simply force people into buying new games in which they still nab roughly 30-45% of the profit. For publishers, it's a win x3 for them.
Yeah, I think they will get sued by someone. It's America's favorite activity. But just like how Gamestop is now having to advertise that DLC listed on the box isn't applicable to used games [because they are in court over this] I think EA can and will get away with this simply because they'll enforce Gamestop to make buyers aware of this. Gamestop will have to comply because if they don't tell their customers they could wind up sued as well over consumer protection laws.
@ Elsa
It is true that this is also about piracy. But even that boils down to a very simple thing: more money. Granted, you can't legitimize piracy, but if game companies proclaim that, well, I'll take it more as their PR department putting on a nice face. Overall I still think they want to do this to either get a chunk of the used game revenue or to simply force people into buying new games in which they still nab roughly 30-45% of the profit. For publishers, it's a win x3 for them.
I think another thing that needs considering is what retailers like Gamestop are going to do about this. Regardless of what the result is these types of actions will hurt retailers bottom line, which they will not appreciate. They wont sit idly and allow this to happen and the worry there for me is who this retaliation will hurt and in what way.
My best guess would be giving less for returns by those publishers. Not only will this increase their profit margin for the games that do get sold back, it could give heed to other developers who may be considering this. The problem is that this would only hurt the consumer.
My best guess would be giving less for returns by those publishers. Not only will this increase their profit margin for the games that do get sold back, it could give heed to other developers who may be considering this. The problem is that this would only hurt the consumer.
I seriously doubt anyone will win a lawsuit about this, EA are smart enough to cover their asses legally. It'll be printed on the back of the box like the Rock Band export code thing is. The reason I don't give a toss is because EA aren't hiding it. They're announcing this well ahead of when the games come out so people have the time to get the news out and decide for themselves what they want to do as a result.
@ Enkido
Yeah,that's just it. Gamestop isn't going to go bankrupt over this, but they certainly aren't going to willingly lower the price to accomodate the $10 fee. So either the customer resale value goes down to cancel this out, or, well, who really knows. It likely won't be good.
@ njsykora
No one ever said people would win the suit even if it was brought up. But someone will try to just because they can. It would be different if the loser of a suit had to pay the legal costs involved, but that doesn't exist here and so frivolous suits are filed all the time.
Plus, like you said, EA looks to be covering their butts on this one. Uninformed, or just oblivious, consumers will still get a shock when they realize it, but they likely won't be able to do much about it except maybe a refund from Gamestop or something.
Yeah,that's just it. Gamestop isn't going to go bankrupt over this, but they certainly aren't going to willingly lower the price to accomodate the $10 fee. So either the customer resale value goes down to cancel this out, or, well, who really knows. It likely won't be good.
@ njsykora
No one ever said people would win the suit even if it was brought up. But someone will try to just because they can. It would be different if the loser of a suit had to pay the legal costs involved, but that doesn't exist here and so frivolous suits are filed all the time.
Plus, like you said, EA looks to be covering their butts on this one. Uninformed, or just oblivious, consumers will still get a shock when they realize it, but they likely won't be able to do much about it except maybe a refund from Gamestop or something.

surf dtoid with 

Rising (10+)
People you follow

send message
follow
followers



