Why EA’s $10 online used game pass is a GREAT idea

Maxconsole writes: At first hearing, we thought EA’s idea of a $10 charge to go online with a used game was an act of pure and sheer greed. It was almost as if they were trying to squeeze out every penny possible from the gaming sector. But on second thoughts, we have to say that it is a great idea, the game industry cannot be compared to the car industry or any other, it is a rare and unique industry that thrives on creativity with little margins now more than ever. So keep reading for their thoughts on why the magical online pass is a great idea.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
trounbyfire2840d ago

it sucks that EA is doing this and it shouldn't be looked at as them trying to get money to make up for the times we are in. It's GREED pure and simple and we should not support it. I will not so who is with me. seriously i will not

deadreckoning6662840d ago (Edited 2840d ago )

I personally believe it's a good idea. EA is a great publisher and I think the gaming community should be supporting them by buying their games brand new. Games like Bad Company 2, Mass Effect 2, and the upcoming Medal of Honor and EA MMA DESERVE to be bought first hand.

Btw, there are GREAT deals out there. I bought BC2 on Amazon and they gave me 25 bucks towards my next game purchase(which I will be spending on EA MMA).

@trounbyfire- I don't think their greedy...dude, look at BC2. The people who bought it new are rewarded with free maps for the next year or so.

IdleLeeSiuLung2840d ago (Edited 2840d ago )

GREED is part of any company... that is not the issue. The issue is a business model that rips off consumers by:

a) prevent people to lend away games to play online. Basically with this pass, for the most part only one person can play it online if you have multiple accounts.

b) decrease a consumers resale value of game

This isn't going to hurt GameStop, they will just factor in the cost of the Game Pass when computing trade in value!

Maintenance of servers is part of the initial new purchase of the game, not how frequently I use it. People b!tch about Activision, but in my eyes EA is far worse.

Topshelfcheese2840d ago

It will hurt gamestop, cause if consumers thought about it, they wouldnt be paying 54.99 for a used copy of a game anymore. It would be cheaper to buy it new and have all the access already.

This is a brilliant move to get Gamestop to lower there used game prices, yes people will get less resale value from Gamestop, but you can always sell the stuff yourself on amazon, ebay, etc and get far more money back.

Silver3602839d ago

But they get nothing from the sale of a used game, so where is the money coming from to maintain online stats and the servers?

IdleLeeSiuLung2839d ago (Edited 2839d ago )

EA should account for the cost of their servers from the initial sale!

It shouldn't matter who uses it as long as I have a legitimate copy!!! Why would EA all of a sudden be entitled to more money from a second sale?

Delive2834d ago

Good point. I am on the fence though. I feel the developers, the real ones who put the work and sweat into making the games we love, are getting shorted in the used game market. I should be feeding their kids when buying their games, not gamestop. The pass will help some of that revenue get back to the developers. From where I live, I have a used game store that sells recently released used games for $39.95, $15 cheaper that GS. So, even if I bought TW11 used from there, I could get the pass and still come off better than getting it at GS.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2834d ago
Nineball21122840d ago

I don't know I didn't ask this some other time... but...

How will this effect game rentals? If I rent a game through GameFly, will it not be usable in terms of the online portion of it?

If so, that sucks big time... lol

Baka-akaB2840d ago (Edited 2840d ago )


I entirely support the decision .
I and others dont constantly buy new games (dont care for used stuff) , so crappy store entirely benefits from an alternative market (that's actually ripping off customers a lot) , while giving devs and publishers , yet another excuse to increase costs of games .

Your 10$ at least go toward the devs , and if you dont care about online , you dont even need to roll with it , can keep buing used or rent the game.

That new system+incentive free dlc such as EA's cerberus network , are perfect imo .
It's either that or games being tied to accounts even more .

tda-danny2840d ago (Edited 2840d ago )

In theory its a good idea and shouldn't hurt the customer.

However, the reality is that EA sports games to not share the same dev time as big titles (yearly iterations), and thus only refinements are made to the products year after year. This means that while the EA sports titles sell well currently at full price, the cost of production is lower than for most games = increased profits already, without the need to charge $10 to play on line to those who buy it used.

Also, EA pulls down its online servers after 2-3 years on its sports titles, so its not like they are supporting their sports titles from 5 years ago.

What is this extra $10 going towards exactly?

I usually buy my games new, so its not a huge deal to me, but for some, it appears to be greedy greedy old EA again...

Cevapi882840d ago

the $10 does...but the other $20-$50 goes to the store...its just another step back in what ownership of videogames means

Enate2840d ago (Edited 2840d ago )

Has this considered people who rent? Most people rent to decide if they want to buy. If the online component is an important part of the game you rented and you can't play without paying. You could ultimately decide well it isn't worth paying for send it back and the online could have been the determining factor of if you decided to buy it or not. An ultimately they have inadvertently killed a potential sale.

Edit: just saw Nineball2112 post but that raises the question twice now an I can clearly see I'm not the only one with the question.

qface642839d ago

i buy all my games new x)
only games i buy used are the rather older ones and chances are if it supports online i doubt the servers would still even be up

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2834d ago
isa_scout2840d ago

i would have agreed but for the fact that you cant even play franchise modes without the $10 pass which is bull. Online i can understand because EA has to maintain servers and pay for the online expenses,but people don't generally take kindly to someone forcing them into spending extra money on something so this could seriously backfire on EA

playstation_clan2840d ago

is EA and activision related?

Lucreto2840d ago

I wouldn't be surprised if Gamestop give us less in trade in as it is not the complete package as you used the code and Gamestop would still charge full price.

MonopolyRSV2840d ago

5 dollars would've been more reasonable.

Show all comments (48)
The story is too old to be commented.