How much would you pay for a pre-owned game? Would it have to be £5 cheaper than a brand new version? £10? Half the price? How about if you had to pay for more than just the disc itself? Because that’s how the industry is shaping up with EA’s announcement of the EA Sports Online Pass. Those who buy their games still in the cellophane have nothing to concern themselves about, but those picking up the forthcoming Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2011 second-hand will see their wallets $10 lighter for the privilege of playing online.
This week EA boss John Riccitiello unveiled the latest stage in Project Ten Dollar. From now on, all EA Sports games will require an ‘Online Pass’ to play online and access bonus content; something that is included free with each new game thanks to a redeemable code, but those buying second-hand will be charged a $10 fee per-title to play their friends over Xbox Live or the PlayStation Network.
Up until this point, many developers have inserted “free” items into titles to reward the original purchasers. Extra quest lines in Dragon Age, suits of armour in Too Human, or additional maps in Gears of War; each has been harvested via a one-time-use-only code that isn’t available to those wanting a second-hand bargain. Without the need to announce their specific intention of these “free” items, it is all too clear that publishers are attempting to persuade players to fork out that little extra and give money to them rather than solely to the second-hand seller.
All of these extras, however, aren’t considered to be anything that could lock the user out of any single game feature; the sheer size of Dragon Age should be enough for anyone, there are countless loot drops in Too Human to make up for a handful of missing garments, and the support shown for Gear elsewhere means that no one should be lacking for multiplayer maps. Without an EA Sports Online Pass, though, you will not be able to play online. Full stop.
No matter how much Riccitiello tries to spin it with mentions of it being a “positive consumer experience”, or the classic “development teams can afford to stick around and work on IP for longer”, this is the first open shot across the second-hand retailers’ bow. And more power to EA for doing so.
I stopped trading in my games at roughly the same time GAME created an almost High Street monopoly with their take-over of Gamestation. After that I didn’t think it was worth my time or effort to trade-in my games for a pittance and, on the flip-side, purchase second-hand games when a still-sealed version was only a few pounds more. Gestures aside, I would much prefer to pay a fiver more and know that the developer/publisher will see a cut of it rather than get a small percentage off for a dog-eared instruction manual.
Given that last year GameStop (the US equivalent of GAME) made nearly $2 billion from the sales of used video games, with the creators, publishers and distributors of said games seeing not a fraction of that, I think it’s high time that some one with the clout of EA sought to redress the balance. I’m all for a free market economy and understand the argument that says trade-ins allow gamers to buy yet more games, but this move by one of the world’s largest publishers will have everyone eager to see the results.
The most intriguing prospect is just how GAME, GameStop and alike will price such products. Waves are already being felt as there is already one law suit under way in the States from a punter unhappy that he was not made aware about the inability to access the advertised free DLC from his used copy of Dragon Age. We’ll no doubt see more when Tiger tees off.
I make my living as a programmer at a British games developer. In my spare time I try and spread myself between writing, gaming, drumming, goalkeeping, rolling dice and keeping my hair blue. Somewhere around that my wife fits in.
Disclaimer: the views expressed are my own and do not neccessarily reflect those of my employer. "
9 Comments
And should this venture force more people into buying new games as the pre-owned market rapidly declines, what’s to stop EA or any other publisher hiking up the price of new titles?
The “right to profits from used sales” needs to be stamped out. They have no right, it’s a fact of law.
No, I do not support this ‘pay and display’ method that EA are introducing in any way.
It’s a pros and cons thing really. Firstly, and frankly, second-hand games aren’t exactly cheap are they? Most the time certain stores take the pee and mark them almost as expensive as their first-hand equivalents.
Secondly, I don’t think developers are entitled to a piece of that pie, but when $2bn (and that’s just the US) is floating around in an industry where dev costs are sky rocketing are you surprised that people want to try and pull that back from the retailer? When people complain about the high cost of games they should also consider what factors go into that and one of them is the money that publishers expect to make back from titles.
But don’t paint me as an industry spokesman, I used to buy loads of second-hand games when I was younger and didn’t have the disposable income I do now. It has its place in the industry and no one can refute that as it keeps people who don’t necessarily care about the latest and greatest releases and are happy to play things six-months old in the loop and hopefully at a reasonable price.
You may not support it, but can you see why they are doing it?
Its plain why they’re doing it. Greed.
Many publishers want to do away with the pre-owned market altogether and not for the benefit of the consumer. This move is one step closer to achieving that goal and for that I do not and will not support it.
The sooner consoles head to a Steam-style purchase system the better as far as I’m concerned, and I see this as a small step down that inevitable road.
I’d much rather purchase through an online intermediary that takes a sliver of the profits and then distributes the rest to the developer responsible, rather than through a high street behemoth that rips off the consumer with spectacularly low trade-in prices and then takes all of the profits from an inflated second-hand sale. And I’m sorry, but how is our high street second-hand market not based on pure greed and completely detrimental to the consumer? And that’s the situation you want to preserve? No thanks.
We have two viable examples of game delivery systems that cut out retailers entirely (iTunes and Steam), and – using both extensively – it’s almost impossible to want retail to continue in its present form. Games are cheaper on both marketplaces because of the ease of access to competing titles and the lack of publishing costs, and anything over a few months old quickly becomes bargain territory. What’s not to like? I can do without boxed copies, and once you break that tradition it’s difficult to want to go back.
These are all just movements towards that situation occurring on consoles, and personally, I’m all for it.
Myself and millions of other gamers simply don’t have vast amounts of disposable income with which to buy new games, certainly not in the capacity the industry currently likes see. Take away our ability to trade, no matter how much or how little that may be, and we buy less games. And that is a fact, whether you like it or not.
Just to add: if you think I bought Alan Wake straight off the shelf at full price with a mortgage and two mouths to feed then you really are living in cloud cuckoo land.
That came out a tad harsher than I intended. Sorry about that.:)
But it’s not a fact is it? How could you possibly know you wouldn’t purchase more games if the industry eventually moved to a purely digitally distributed market? It’s exactly that system that has rehabilitated PC gaming for myself and – in your words – millions of others. Do I want to pay £20 or trade in some stuff for a boxed second-hand copy of GTA IV in a store? No. Will I pay £7 for it on Steam? Absolutely.
I won’t be messianic and claim that I am talking for vast swathes of people apart from myself, but on a personal level, my experiences with those systems couldn’t have been more positive, and the second-hand market in the UK is just a joke when you compare the consumer benefits of both. If this is a road to that happening, then I’m in.
And don’t fall into the trap of thinking you represent everybody with a mortgage and financial constraints, because your views certainly don’t represent mine.
Interestingly enough it seems that THQ are jumping on the bandwagon, too. Reports are coming in that their latest UFC game comes with equivalent pass codes enclosed, costing you $5 if you buy it second-hand.
Personally, I think the sooner that console publishers can detach themselves from brick and motar stores the better. It’s only then that we are going to see Xbox Live Marketplace and the PSN Store take on the true ability to pitch full retail products at competitive prices. As it stands most of the Games on Demand titles on the 360 are just priced at a flat value and, if rumours have it, are only allowed to appear on there in the first place if they are selling less than X units a week so they don’t compete with the High Street.