ONLINE PASS FOR MADDEN 11

[UNC_Pete]

Maybe if they put out a good product they wouldn't need to worry about recouping money from trade ins.

[Valdarez]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

I read your post, it's flawed and I pointed out the flaw.

So your saying they don't max out the servers after launch? That they don't buy the servers ahead of time to prepare for max load? That the cost for the servers / services is more than $0.20 year over year?

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

There's another flaw in your post as well. That $10 isn't just for online cost recovery. That $10 is for cost recovery for development plain and simple.

See, that's not how they have marketed it, or how Raczilla has explained it as an EA rep. They are claiming it's for their online services. That's not me, that's EA making that claim.

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

It may be marketed as $10 for online but the intent of it is to try to get people to buy the product new and if, failing that, they don't, then at least EA does get some of the dev cost back. Bottom line, it's not just $10 for online play development costs, it's just using the online portion as a way to recover overall dev costs.

I think we agree on the fact that it's EA trying to get a piece of those used game sales.

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

For those of you who are opposed to this would you be in favor that EA simply raise the price of Madden across the board from $59 to $69 to recover the millions of dollars that they are are currently losing to Gamestop? Because that's an alternative method I'm thankful they chose not to do. Something to think about...

Of course not. They need to build a better product so consumers want the game new. Or restructure your costs so they don't need to gouge customers.

[Valdarez]

Quote: Originally Posted by UNC_Pete

Maybe if they put out a good product they wouldn't need to worry about recouping money from trade ins.

Bingo!

Build me a game that I can't wait to get my hands on! That I can't go a year without! That I can't wait 3 months to buy used. A game I'll be proud to have in my game collection.

And just as important, quit doing things that alienate potential consumers (something I pointed out months ago in the business practices thread). They don't do themselves any favors by alienating customers. Especially when it's something that is so intentional as Online Pass. I'm not sure how many folks rent or buy used, but they are going to anger a huge percentage of gamers, all of which are potential customers. As someone who spent a good deal of their professional career in the CRM space, EA sports Online Pass Program is down right stupid. Your goal should be to bridge the gap with potential customers, not to punish them effectively pushing them further away.

[ODogg]

Nope, this issue affects all developers and all games, from bad to top tier. Go to your local Gamestop sometime and see how many used copies of Modern Warfare, Mass Effect and other top-notch, grade-A titles are on sale there used.

I agree Madden is not top-notch, grade-A title anymore but this isn't just a "well madden is below par or madden is so lacking" issue at all.

[CreatineKasey]

I still don't understand the criticism. They're free to set a price. You're free to pay it, if you want. Don't like the offer? Don't buy!

I don't see why other sectors of business and precedent tie into this really. If they took more extreme measures (such as an even higher cost) and it worked, more power to them. It's our job as consumers to decide whether a purchase is worth it or not. We aren't blind addicts who can't control our choices. We have free reign over our purchases (for the most part).

I think a great example is clothing. You can spend SO much money ($100 on a graphic t-shirt) on a shirt that may cost $10 to create and ship. Because it's a current trend, people will pay for it. Should they be forced to charge less for that shirt? No. We decided if they need to through our purchases.

Again, people need to speak with their wallets. Don't like the pricing? Don't buy it. It's that simple. You probably make that choice every time you go to the grocery store. Chicken breasts cost too much this week? Don't buy them this week. I do that all the time.

I guess what we could hope for is that the market does "check" these guys and sales do decrease because of this added cost. I'm thinking it won't. If they try to grab more/push further we may see that, though. I'm sure they run multiple focus groups on this stuff, so this isn't a blind guess when they add this cost. They talked about running focus groups when they discussed the urge to create a simpler game.

If games got out of control, I'd have no problem playing free to play PC games (league of legends!) and just focus on other hobbies that aren't trying to rip me off. I don't think EA is ripping me off, but if they were. Keep that in mind.

[sois]

Quote: Originally Posted by BrianFifaFan

I've been reading this and have come up with a few thoughts. I'm gettting ready to go make engines for GM, which will end up in a new truck which, hopefully someone will buy. Maybe someone will buy a used Duramax today, but you know what? I don't want them to. Because a vehicle bought at Fred's Used Truck Emporium doesn't help my company. It doesn't pay my bills. Only a new truck with my engine does. Now do I believe that GM should honor the warranty of the truck bought from Fred? Sure. But I have no problem if the OnStar isn't turned on. Now if the guy buys my new truck, he gets one year of OnStar standard. So that's a perk and incentive to buy my new truck. I guess I'm viewing online as OnStar. And when someone buys the game used, the online hardware (software component) is still there, just not enabled. Now, some guys will view it as if I've disabled the ignition, I don't. Reason I used OnStar is that it is an ongoing cost, not a possible warranty cost associated with a possible failure. (which all car makers honor for the length of warranty) According to some of the reasoning, the price of said game should include an estimate of 24/365 online access for one year. The simple truth is that they probably factor that most games have an average lifespan of 3-6 months, with the gamer logging x amount of hours on the EA servers. Now, if you have that doubled by another 3-6 months with reselling, you've lost revenue. You're actually at a loss from the jump, because you're supporting a customer that was never yours, but Fred's. If you let Fred's customers use your servers, you're eating what should be Fred's cost. I'm sorry, but I just see EA protecting what it needs to do to be successful, which is trying to use tactics to push the consumer to buy new. And they do offer a secondary avenue to create a revenue stream, while offering the customer full functionality. If you want to buy used and "have OnStar," pay the 10 bucks....

I don't have OnStar in my truck. What is the percentage cost of OnStar versus the cost of the truck? Please let me know so I can compare to the 1/6th cost EA is charging for Madden.

I'm guessing OnStar is less than $5000/yr though.

[ODogg]

Raczilla said it's to recoup server costs and of course that's partially true but the big picture here for EA and other companies that enact this sort of plan is that it is to encourage people to buy the game new as opposed to used. And if they do buy it used then at least in some cases, where people want to access online, then EA recoups some of the money via the $10 charge.

[Valdarez]

Quote: Originally Posted by CreatineKasey

I still don't understand the criticism. They're free to set a price. You're free to pay it, if you want. Don't like the offer? Don't buy! I don't see why other sectors of business and precedent tie into this really. If they took more extreme measures (such as an even higher cost) and it worked, more power to them. It's our job as consumers to decide whether a purchase is worth it or not. We aren't blind addicts who can't control our choices. We have free reign over our purchases (for the most part). I think a great example is clothing. You can spend SO much money ($100 on a graphic t-shirt) on a shirt that may cost $10 to create and ship. Because it's a current trend, people will pay for it. Should they be forced to charge less for that shirt? No. We decided if they need to through our purchases. Again, people need to speak with their wallets. Don't like the pricing? Don't buy it. It's that simple. You probably make that choice every time you go to the grocery store. Chicken breasts cost too much this week? Don't buy them this week. I do that all the time. I guess what we could hope for is that the market does "check" these guys and sales do decrease because of this added cost. I'm thinking it won't. If they try to grab more/push further we may see that, though. I'm sure they run multiple focus groups on this stuff, so this isn't a blind guess when they add this cost. They talked about running focus groups when they discussed the urge to create a simpler game. If games got out of control, I'd have no problem playing free to play PC games (league of legends!) and just focus on other hobbies that aren't trying to rip me off. I don't think EA is ripping me off, but if they were. Keep that in mind.

Absolutely Creatine, they can choose to do whatever they desire, and the consumers will vote with their wallets, which has been the problem for EA Sports. Their consumers are voting with their wallets, and EA Sport's response is an extremely defensive one in nature.

The biggest thing that stands out for me is that they are the first company to actually cripple functionality that was historically available in the game, unless a consumer buys it new. There have been other games that provide additional (extra) content via DLC, but I'm not familiar with any other company that crippled their product.

I still think this has more potential to hurt EA than help them. They are effectively artificially lowering the value of their used games by $10. Their ONLY competition is themselves, in other words, used games sales, and they just gave their competition a $10 edge.

Have to wonder who the brain child for this program was at EA Sports, and who vetted it, and how Peter Moore supported it (I'm sure he just saw $$$ signs).