[Yahoo! Games] How playing Madden online could cost you $10

I don't think it will be that simple Casey, they will have to marry your registered Xbox or PS3 to your IP address and email code.

Sorry.

DD

 

Wow, the thread really blew up. Would try to respond to individual posts, but that would take way too long...especially since I'm in the minority. I'll just put down some random thoughts.

Anyway, I more or less agree with what DaDakota has said, although I do feel differently about a few things.

For one, I don't buy the server costs argument (several people have already mentioned some holes in the logic). Sure, this would help a bit with all that. But IMO, this is about trying get some of the money spent on used games (and, to a lesser degree, rented and pirated games). It just happens that charging for online play was the best way to implement this sort of system. In fact, I just skimmed the original article, but I don't even really see it saying anything about this $10 charge being for server costs (might have missed it). We can continue to debate whether developers need this extra revenue in order to keep servers running for gamers buying used games, but I think it is missing the bigger issue.

Perhaps you may call EA greedy. In many cases, I would agree, but not here. Charging for cheat codes. Sure. Holding back on content just to charge later for it with DLC. Uh-huh. But this? No. Certainly is a slippery slope (occurence #32 of this phrase I think), but I'll wait to label them as greedy when they do something worse. Since I don't even buy used games normally, I don't even feel affected. So they aren't "nickel and diming" us. I'd wait to accuse them of that when they charge all gamers for something that should be free, not just those that didn't actually pay EA anything.

The used car analogies don't really work here IMO. Don't really feel like going deep into this argument since it could be its own 10+ page subject, but there are a lot of differences between a used car and a used game (one is a physical tool that degrades over time, while the other is software used for entertainment). Sure, other markets don't bother to go after the used market, but that's generally due to different business models and circumstances. But notice the industries that are most similar to games actually aren't too different (PC games would be the most similar, as mentioned, and we know what used games are like there).

Not really familiar with all the industries, but I think music artists generally generate most of their profits from concerts, not their CDs (and I have no idea how digital distribution is doing...may have already overtaken CD sales for some?). Don't know how a $8-$12 gets broken down, but given how cheap they are to begin with, probably not a lot of incentive for consumers to pay $3-$6 for a used CD (and even if there was, the artist would only be missing out on a few dollars maybe, instead of $30+). Plus song licensing helps I imagine.

I think movies generally rely quite a bit on revenue generated in theaters, not DVD sales. Though as with music, prices also help. And while not at war with used DVD sales, they do seem to not be pleased with rentals (movies, like games, can be a "one-time" entertainment experience, so rentals can be a big thing). Notice how studios have tried to push back rentals 30 days or whatever (haven't really followed this closely, but I remember reading something about this). Plus, I think some put out "rental-only" discs which have no extras, more ads, etc. So they're definitely trying to get a piece of that pie, although since their business model is different, they use different methods.

Developers get money for their work through game sales and only game sales (maybe with some minor exceptions). So they're naturally very focused on getting as much revenue as they can from these sales. Seeing consumers spend $50+ on their games, and not getting a single cent from that purchase likely doesn't make them feel secure. Probably the same for developers of other (non-game) software as well (as mentioned, not much of a used market for PC software). And unlike music and movies (and even some software), digital distribution won't be feasible for a while unfortunately.

Now I'll be the first to admit that the video game business model is all screwed up. Developers are struggling to make a profit, yet we consumers have to spent $60 (or more) on a game. Not a very good model, even if games can supply us with many hours of entertainment. I'd be curious to see if the industry could rework the model a bit, maybe even try to sell at a ~$20 price tag or so. I'd be curious to see if a ~1M seller could turn into a game that sold 5M-10M. If Steam is any indication, I'd be buying WAY more games at these prices (was going to hold off on GTA IV, but for $7, why not?). But this is too big of a risk to take across the board, especially since this is a developer's only source of revenue. And even if you could convince the developer, you'd still have to convince the retailers to stock the game and have their cut dropped as well (won't be getting $20-$30 per sale anymore). Might have to wait until DD is ready to really see a change in the model.

I don't think simply making better games would help. Tons of great games have not sold well. Now I have no idea if getting some extra revenue from used games would have made a difference to those studios, but I'm sure developers would definitely feel that way (a lot of them feel that way just about piracy, which is probably a fraction of used game sales). And for those singling out EA, I personally feel as though they have tried to make great, new IPs in the last year or two (see one of my earlier posts). And yet, IIRC, their profits dropped and they actually ended up taking a few losses I think. So they went out, focusing on making better, more innovative games, but the market didn't really give them what they were looking for. Can you blame them for maybe looking into other areas for profitability, especially when it seems like "just make good games" didn't really help all that much?

Could probably go on and on, but I'll just stop there. Queue 5 more pages of posts blasting EA, DaDakota, myself, etc.

Probably the same thing that happens with your DLC. Or whatever happens to PC gamers in similar circumstances.

 

Well I asked that before. If they connect it to my IP and PS3 then what happens when I move or my PS3 blows? Or what if I buy another PS3 for my bedroom?

Play at a friends house?

the logistics on this thing just seem like it will be impossible to be fair and effective at the same time.

 

My PC games were linked to my username. I guess they will have to do the same thing on the console. If you change your username you will lose your ability to play online.

 

I think the video game industry would be better off as a whole if it tried to find a way to compete with GameStop and the rest of the used game market rather than finding new ways to recharge the end user.

 

Refusing to let people run servers for consumers is act of greed. As already stated earlier they want to profit on something others will offer for free. This is also becomes a factor when they decide to kill servers for games. There is no excuse for shutting down Madden 09, they are sticking it to the consumers. They are trying to force someone into buying the next madden which will pretty much be a copy/paste job. I understand the issue of piracy but they are not attacking piracy with this new policy.

 

What this all boils down to is that EA is trying to sell us a product that we will not actually own.

This pisses me the **** off.

 

So how does the original retail purchaser of the game pay for online multiplayer? Because they are not paying this $10 "server and online multiplayer charge". I assume it is a cost that is built into the retail price of the game. At least it should be if games are being priced correctly.

With that being said, how does a retail purchaser selling his copy of the game to another person add enough additional costs to EA's bottom line to warrant them effecting a surcharge after ownership is transferred? That question can't be answered because EA is not incurring any additional costs. That $10 charge is pure profit done under the motivation of degrading consumer choice.

I don't think this practice can be defended as anything other than EA's attempt at a used game tax. I am open to hearing a rational argument on how it is anything other than the equivalent of a used game tax though.

 

I purchased a bad game one day for 65 bones, I swore I would never buy another game again.

These games are just tooooo expensive man.

Spoiler

I would pay 250 bucks for the next Elder Scrolls game though...:grin:

 

How does Steam or Battle.net work for PC games? No reason this couldn't be a similiar formula.

 

Nope, you're paying for a lobby and friendslist.

 

DD, ever consider that gaming companies should try to focus on making games compelling for longer than 5-10 hours of gameplay? You do realize that the used game market gets it's inventory from new game buyers.

Developers shouldn't think of the used game markets as lost revenue just like they wouldn't with Gamefly (wonder how that'll work with this EA tax). If Gamestop's practices of pushing used games for $5 less than new ones is so frustrating, why not have publishers cut them out of the loop completely and not allow them to distribute new releases?

True Digital distribution might be coming, but it'll certainly be a slow transition (already has begun) and gaming companies will have to lower prices to make it acceptable by consumers (no media, packaging, retail shipping). Even then, until broadband speeds get better with no data caps will it ever take off.

 

The problem with single player games longer than 10 hours is the amount of work required to make them....the risk becomes too great.

If you make a game that has 30+ hours of game play, it more than triples the budget and today's games are about $15 million a piece to develop.....

Some companies will take that risk, as an example, WOW, cost about $100 million to make, and tons more to maintain and to do expansion packs....now they make a ton of cash, but lots of other MMOs fail...like Tabula Rosa etc....

So it is a risk reward deal, the way to get around that is to make them multiplayer, and we are doing that...everytime you play in the sand box you get a new experience because humans are unpredictable.

Either way, we have got to get rid of used games and piracy, they are hurting the industry moving forward.

DD

 

Piracy I can see. Used games I'd have to disagree with.

I know you have kids as do I. My kids get $10 allowance per week for chores around the house. My kids love video games mostly Wii and DS games.

Other than the few new games I get them at Christmas or on Birthdays they buy all the other games they want themselves.

$60 for a new Wii game is 6 weeks of savings for a kid. $40 for a new DS game is also crazy. Often times they buy used and older games so they have something new to play. It might not be fresh off the presses but it's new to them.

Also with used games if it sucks they can take it back and exchange it during the first week after purchase. As you know... there are a lot of games out there that look good but in reality suck. I'd rather my kid have the option to exchange his used game than being stuck with his purchase of a new game.

This used game market is enabling a new generation of gamers who will eventually buy your new games when they have more resources.

We don't pirate games, movies or music here but we do purchase used when possible for the very reasons listed above.

 

Used games are someone's property.

Is that where this is headed? All games are going to become a "service" instead of a property? I pay for something without owning it and you tell me how to use it, when, where?

 

Ahhh, ok. Makes more sense now. So you are saying that games will be moving to no discs and all downloads, therefore squeezing the used game stores out......

Maybe they SHOULD share some of that revenue with the big dogs now, to set themselves up for the future....

 

Yes, that is exactly where it is going....once it becomes downloadable, and none transferable.


Voodoo,

What will happen is that as games age, companies will naturally drop the prices, so your kids will still be covered.

DD

 

Well that's ****ing ****ty.

 

I hope the industry moving forward involves more of this: http://www.wolfire.com/humble

For those who don't know, some indie game developers joined together to offer 5 full games for whatever you want to pay (1 cent or more).

 

If you lose the added value of physical property of the game, the price should drop. Look at the music industry, albums on iTunes are about 9.99. They used to be 15 bucks. That's a 33% decrease, the video games should do the same if that's where they're heading.