By now, I’m sure we’re all aware of EA Sports’ ghastly intentions of charging used game buyers extra for the use of online play within their games. As the uglier sister of the already rather ugly “Project Ten Dollar”, EA’s Online Pass system means all future EA Sports releases will ship bundled with a code, which when entered correctly will allow access to the online components of their games. Although similar to the bundled codes for extra DLC already on the market with the likes of Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and Just Cause 2, Online Pass will instead lock out all multiplayer activities for anyone committing the ruthless crime of buying or renting an EA Sports game second hand. For those that stick to the used markets, or use popular rental services such as Lovefilm or Gamefly, online modes that have remained free up until now will cost an extra $10 for activation.
Whilst the Online Pass is due to launch this year with Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11, EA infact won’t be the first publisher to reward buyers punish the used markets by charging extra for online play. With Ubisoft already having confirmed their interest in following on EA’s sordid coat tails, THQ have today announced their intentions to follow suit. Well, follow suit might be a slightly inaccurate term of phrase. THQ will infact be the first publisher to charge an additional cost for their multiplayer usage.
Confirmed in an update sent to Destructoid this afternoon, THQ have officially announced that the upcoming UFC Undisputed 2010 will arrive in the US on May 25th bundled with a code for online activation. Anyone without a valid code will be required to stump up an extra $5 to grapple with their buddies online. With Online Pass set to land alongside Tiger Woods’ latest annual update on June 8th, THQ have managed not only to undercut EA’s launch but also slash in half their pricing strategy. Not that such issues make this any more excusable.
Email the author of this review at matc@tap-repeatedly.com.
All of this is greedy, appalling, and pointed in the wrong direction. Why are the publishers punishing gamers for the used market? If they want to attack the used market, they should figure out a way to make it costly for the GameStops and other used-game dominators to conduct business. It’s not our fault. We’re just consumers looking for a good deal.
All of this is just going to lead to a more vibrant, exciting, and innovative independent game development scene. Why buy from the big-box people when you get better stuff, cheaper, from the indies?
I’d be behind this if the pricing structure actually benefited the consumer. I’d be quite happy to forgo cheap DLC and the vast majority of tacky, ill thought out, creatively void, stagnant and boring online modes if I could pay £10 less off the upfront cost of a game. Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen anytime soon. I suspect RRP will remain £40 (in the UK) regardless of how much the content gets chopped and dissected..
Leaving aside for a moment the massive “screw you” this says to consumers, I think it is a terrible idea.
Videogame companies are missing the point big time about used games. The reason used games exist is because of the lack of price stratification in the market. Used games do not just allow gamers to get games cheaper, they put downward price pressure on games that are selling above their market value.
Gamestop is not going to sell a used game for $55 if they can’t move it. So even if the game is still selling new for $60, Gamestop will sometimes mark it as low as $40 for a used copy. That is usually a sign to me that the new copy is about to see a price drop.
If game companies would quit selling $30 games for $60 most of this problem would go away. They seem to be oblivious to the basic economics of supply and demand. Game pricing is totally arbitrary anyway. Start selling a title for what people see as its value and you’d actually get more sales. Valve has proved this time and again through Steam.
If they take away the price advantage of used games, all they do is shrink their market. Why do they want to shrink their market? Do they really believe that people who wouldn’t pay full price for a new copy will suddenly decide it’s worth it? Do they really believe that a majority of used game sales are recently released titles that are (maybe) $5 cheaper used?
The increase in price to $60 has been a huge boon to Gamestop. When games were $50 Gamestop would offer $35 for a very recent title and sell it for $47 or $48. The price gap between new and used was minimal and not very attractive for people like me who don’t see the savings as worth it, even with an Edge card. Now that games are $60 they still offer $35 for a very recent release, mark it down $5 less than new, and still make MORE MONEY on used games.
In short, games are too expensive and it’s driving consumers away. Removing what little price stratification there is will only make it worse.
The closest analogy I can think of is cutting off your finger out of spite and deciding the best way to stop the bleeding is to just cut off the whole hand. I wish them the best of luck with this strategy, it will only make the game industry better after it recovers from their inevitable crash.
Actually, related if a little self-serving
How to avoid the next game industry crash
Looks like they still want their four-way game of chicken. EA is hitting the gas when they need to consider hitting the brakes.
Your comments about used games prices at Gamestop are interesting, Jason. Here in the UK, our biggest high street retailer GAME often sell used copies of games for usually no more than a pound or two less than the new price. I’ve actually been in there before and spotted games priced as more expensive used than brand new.. sometimes by as much as £10-£12 more if the new boxed copy is on sale. Ridiculous strategy..
I understand publishers wanting to put the brakes on the used games market because they get nothing from it, but there have simply got to be better ways to go about your business than this..
It’s more or less the same at GameStop, Mat – you’ll see a game $60 new and $55 used… makes me wonder why people buy them used, since you might get scratches on the disc and such. But saving a few dollars or pounds is always a nice thing.
The issue is that there are used markets for all kinds of stuff: books, CDs, movies… none of the original creators get profits from those either. Publishers should stop whining and reevaluate their own pricing models rather than attacking customers.
Having a friend who runs the biggest Gamestation in Europe, based in Hull, he assures me that pre-owned games are the only true way for the business to make money. The profit margins on retail copies are so small they need pre owned games. The problem being that the profit made from selling pre owned games goes entirely in the stores pockets and not the developers or publishers.
Bioshock 2 brand new = £50
Bioshock 2 pre owned = £45
Profit on brand new = £4
Profit on pre owned = £23 (all to the store)
This is why EA and the likes are doin this, and I’m sorry to say I agree with it. I only agree with it however after listening to my friend and his inside knowledge as an area manager (gets me very mad).
That aside, people only buy pre owned cos they are cheaper, and we all know retail pricing is a rip off…
I feel like going into a rant and saying “look at the music industry” but you’ve all hit the nail on the head: if your product is struggling you don’t tell your consumers to go to hell: you rethink your product, and that includes pricing.
This infuriates me. But I mostly buy used games only because they are ones that are no longer sold new. I never go for the 5-dollars-less used “deals” when a game is retailing new for only a few dollars more; it’s just not worth the possible shitty condition the disc/case/manual could all be in (I’m so tragically anal about that stuff).
Of course, anyone who has ever bought a used game that was originally mine probably thought a mistake had been made since their newly purchased used product looked so immaculate.
Honestly, the impact to me personally is that unless I have a strong interest in your game, you just lost me. If I’m going to be punished, or even if I have to go through extra steps to get the “full experience” (free or not) you’re just making me lose interest.
If that is a widespread sentiment, it will become a real problem for EA. Again, speaking purely for myself, this means I will be reluctant to explore new properties, I will not be as likely to pick up something that was a casual interest. Furthermore, removing the resell value or reducing it actually lowers the overall game value.
All they are doing is removing value from the game both from a monetary and content perspective. How does devaluing a product encourage me to spend money on it? I’m not sure I understand their plan here.
Xtal, I’m exactly the same. Having ranted about all this, I couldn’t actually tell you the last time I bought a pre-owned game. I’m far too anal over the condition and upkeep of my products. If I’m browsing a stack of used games, and a game I want has so much as a smear or sticky evidence of a previously removed price label, I’ll go across the road and pay £10+ more for it brand new.
It’s relatively rare that I buy games now anyway, at least until Steam appeared on Mac (another story for another day), so when I do hand over my hard earned I appreciate the small things that make up the experience.. right down to things as ridiculous as that lovely “new game” smell that wafts up your nostrils whenever you open the box. Mmmm.
I don’t necessarily think you have to be a regular in the pre-owned markets to take issue with this, though. I’ll confess, I’m not much of an online gamer. In terms of EA Sports’ games, I’ll probably play 20-30 FIFA matches online before losing interest. Given the choice, I’d probably sooner say to EA “sod the online and sell it me for £30”, but instead I’ll be buying the game as usual, for the same price, and have to redeem a code for something that was free for the past 5 years anyway.
There’s abit of this that seems abit cheeky aswell, particularly as right now the focus only seems to be on sports games. Are sports gamers an easy target? I know guys who own a Playstation 3 for 2 reasons; FIFA and Pro Evolution Soccer. They literally play nothing else on their systems. I know there are guys in the US who do the same for Madden. They’re not “gamers”. They’re not going to read blogs like this to find this stuff out. They’ll just buy the game as always and expect the same standard of experience.. only if they buy it used, it’s not going to be the same at all. They’re going to have to pay extra for a feature which was free last year, and every year before that.
It just seems so cheap..
I thought this was a thinly-veiled attempt to get money out of game pirates. Is this not the case?
The “project $10” moves are chiefly against the used games market, while their stupid new DRM is against pirates. That neither is going to work does not seem to have cooled their fervor for offending legitimate customers.
[…] behind has pretty much killed the experience for me. In line with EA’s equally annoying Project Ten Dollar, new copies of FIFA 11 will require code activation to unlock online play. This year, I might just […]