Gaming Media Should Stand Up to EA's Online Pass for Consumers

GFB writes: If I go to buy a house that was built in 1980, do I have to worry that some construction worker is going to show up and ask for 50 bucks for me to use the toilet because he built the house and me buying that house meant he couldn’t build me a new one? EA has lost their f*#@king mind with this ridiculous exercise in greed. I hope that more gaming related news outlets agree and actually stand up for the consumer instead of just grumbling in an editorial and then emailing EA’s PR rep stating they still love them."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
vgn242981d ago

Publishers control the major news outlets. Remember Eidos, Kane & Lynch, and a little site called GameSpot? They don't bite the hand that feeds.

Darkstorn2981d ago

Unfortunately, it's true.

But we have to remember that developers are not the bad guys here, the publishers are.

Proxy2981d ago (Edited 2981d ago )

The developer is usually the publisher. Not hard to publish when the game is just a downloadable binary. They usually don't use DRM either which is a big win for paying customers. The games are reasonably priced too, so there is no excuse for your cursed pirates.

jjohan352981d ago

Unfortunately, EA just lost its once chance to surpass Activision.

Montrealien2981d ago

I assure you, it is not as bad as you may think. You should loosen that tin foil hat a little, the world is a much more simpler thing then you may think.

/on topic

As a reseller myself, if this can be some sort of comprimise so the makor publishers don;t mind the used game market as much, I am all for these online pases.

MazzingerZ2981d ago (Edited 2981d ago )

This just let's clear what the price of dedicated costs for publishers at launch, DLC keeps the servers rolling.

My thought has always been that games should cost 10-15 bucks cheaper for those only interested in SP and mostly for those with XBL silver, they have always payed for the multiplayer component without even having the right to use it

The online component should ship in the disc but unlocks, like that, via a ticket you can buy on the PS Store or XBL, big difference is that today XBL Gold members pay for the online component in ever ygame they purchase and then again to MSFT for access it, what's the difference?..

yeah yeah...1 penny per day is chat PWNS...just don't tell me you would keep paying for XBL gold if MSFT allowed silver to access MP

I don't have an issue with how EA want to run their business, I only purchase games I really want and always brand issue is that publishers today force everybody to pay for the MP component even those that will never use it.

Christopher2981d ago

I don't think what they're doing is bad, though. I think it only affects people who buy used games and I completely believe that they have every right to charge people money for not buying a new game in order to support the online services they provide.

This age of entitlement is really bothersome to me. Businesses use money to provide these services with a hefty cost and second-hand sales only extend the use of these services without helping to keep them funded.

Consoldtobots2981d ago

agreed cgoodno, kids don't understand that gamestop's business model is a parasite on the industry. It's created a whole separate market for stuff that belongs to the publishers/devs. To all the fanboys railing about this, you want console gaming to go the way of PC gaming?

Montrealien2981d ago (Edited 2981d ago )

"agreed cgoodno, kids don't understand that gamestop's business model is a parasite on the industry"

You are correct, it is living inside the host and it has no interest for the host to die, infact it wishes it to become stronger and better. Fact pf the matter is, the host also needs us because while we are trading games, we are also selling a crap load of their new games, with zero guarantee of sales and a very small margin of error. If I order 35k of call of duty modern warf-rare 36, if I sell them all, I am lucky if I make 3k profit, if I dont sell them all, I lose money.

Game trades are as old as videogaming and will exist for ever, if the publishers want to charge for their online services, works for me, it is only fair. But once someone buys a game, it is theirs to do what they wish with it. There is a market for someone who does not want to keep Alan wake in his collection once he has finished it twice, you may not agree with it, but it is not wrong. Some of you guys need to stop licking corporate b*lls.

Next thing you know you are going to say that the garage sale in you neighbor hood selling a 25 year old NES should be punished because the NES belongs to Nintendo? get a grip man.

Noctis Aftermath2981d ago

It's more then likely that consumers will end up paying the same, the money will most likely come from lower trade ins and also lower profits for resellers.

Example: you buy a brand new game for $60, a week lately trade it in for $30, but now instead of $30 you get $25.

Montrealien2980d ago (Edited 2980d ago )

that is exactly what our company is doing, we are taking down the trade in value of games, I expect Gamespot to do the same. We went from 36$ for new games to 28.50$.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2980d ago
Jack Klugman2981d ago

they are too busy trying to make up rumors and flamebait then doing this journalistic garbage..

gaming media seems to rarely be on the side of gamers these days. its more about hits and keeping the publishers happy so they get the scoop(so they dont have to make one up).

GunShotEddy2981d ago

QFT: "keeping the publishers happy" - They all do it!

fourtwenty20092981d ago

It's killing gaming, resulting in the continual shaving off of any content than can be sold for a quick buck. Content that would normally be included as part of the game is being withheld by publishers.

Gamers and game media alike should say this is not cool. We pay enough for games as it is. A game should be sold complete, and not in installments or requiring DRM-like single-use installs that reduce the value of the game for us consumers and limit our freedom to share, sell, or re-use the game.

Christopher2981d ago (Edited 2981d ago )

People should read up on what EA is doing. They're not charging this $10 fee to people who buy games new, only those who buy them used. So, you pay $60 for new or you pay $30-45 used and pay an extra $10 to play online.

I say this because your assessment of double dipping on $60 games isn't accurate. They're single-dipping on a market that they gain nothing else from.

vgchica2981d ago

Funny analogy though. Does raise a good point that I don't buy ther BS story about needing to nickel and dime us.

Dark_king2981d ago

If EA really does intend to do this then something will have to be done.Its not going to hurt anyone but those who buy used games.(which is very often those who cannot afford new games are those wanting to get a not so great game at a good price)I dont have a clue what should be done.I guess we could not allow any EA news to pass through N4G,but that doesn't really hurt them.But honestly I think I just want to see the whole gamer community come together and fight something.Its never happened and never will but man that would be something to see. imagine every gamer out in front of EA at once.What ever we want would be ours.

N4Flamers2981d ago

The problem is you have gamers that just play games as a casual thing. They dont know or care about the politics of gaming. I know plenty of people who bought MW2 and asked me if I was going to get it. When I replied "I'm boycotting activision," and then explained why. They bought the game anyway.

I hope we can stand up to evil publishers. We might not see things like people trying to charge for demos (activision,) People charging us to unlock content thats on the disk I just bought (capcom.)

We all have to support companies that do it right.

asdr3wsfas2980d ago (Edited 2980d ago )

"The problem is you have gamers that just play games as a casual thing. They dont know or care about the politics of gaming."

That's why they're the best to combat it. They won't pay for crap shoveled at them because they're not that interested in video games to play whatever comes out. Notice how the "casual market" on wii doesn't buy most of the inane shovelware and instead chooses quality Nintendo games. Or COD Reflex, RE4, De Blob, TvC, HOTD 2 and 3 Return etcetc, even if they are ports without advertising of old but great games. They don't buy crap shovelware pumped out to make a profit.

They just don't care enough about video games to play a mediocre or overpriced game. Most of what people consider shovelware that sells are games for girls or other audiences "hardcore" games (mostly young men) aren't interested in. Think Rabbids games, which are hilarious and entertaining with friends but looked down upon here for not involving mass murder. Or The Sims, which is ignored here but a huge title that appeals to women and men. The real shovelware that dumbs down these expanded audience games bomb. See Puppy Luv for wii.

To see my point, ask what casual person buys DLC or pays for demos? They're mostly on the wii. How many of them hit up DLC? The wii didn't even do demos for years! The people you are talking about actually compose most of the "hardcore gamers" who bought GTA4 and other games on the hype train without realizing they're utter crap.

This is why game journalists suck - I read only amazon reviews and my purchase history has been great since. Some college student accurately warns me of flaws I decide if I can tolerate while a video game junkie reviewer ignores them for the flavor of the week. That junkie is too interested in finding and idealizing new games for an objective impression. That casual gamer will just quit gaming if he can't find something he likes.

Show all comments (55)
The story is too old to be commented.