Who says he was ever gone?

This. EULAs are supplied with the game. you are only allowed to see the terms of using the product after already purchasing it. no game store has a copy of the EULA for you to read beore buying it. if you find the terms unnacceptable you can't get a refund, since those are only given if the game was faulty.



brilliant.

You people care way too much about video games.

Im just discussing this cos its funny =D

No. It's boring. Boring and stupid.

I find it interesting >: ( .... Go to your indie cave! Now!

http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/11/e...-basic-online/

EA is charging people $10 to get an activation code for games bought second hand.

Yup... Piracy is the way to go!!

I'd prefer paying $10 to not being able to play the game. When I bought my 2nd hand copy of Quake 3 I was devastated to find that a registration code was required for online (until I learned 2222222 worked)

Gotta love EA :happy:

Actually, it makes complete sense. You buy the game new, you get the first DLC free. If you the buy the game used then you are going to have to give the developer at least some money to get the whole experience. I think that this is both smart and fair.

Edit: If I were a developer I would do this with the last level of the game and not just some add on content. I shit you not.

You evil coporate bastard.

I care about the creator, not the dipshit little kid with feelings of entitlement.

This sounds fair to me, and that it's only for multiplayer seems like kindness from EA when they could have just as easily included sigle player.

I'm thinking that if I bought Stranger's Wrath used right now I'd want some of the money to go to OWI, not just the guy who got bored of it.

OWI already got the money for that particular copy when he bought it. Why should a company get money each time a product changes hands? Are you going to give a car manufacturer 10% of your car value when you manage to sell it? Sorry but this is just bullshit.

I like how Havoc has a point and I agree with him.

It's not unlike the real world.

Large sums of money get re-taxed again and again, regardless of how many time's its been taxed before. Just part of the greed that resides in our world. Nothing to do about it. The best you can do is just not get the game at all(or the extra content), and thus not supporting what you're against.

Ok, forget the single player bit.

EA are supporting a person online that wouln't have been online otherwise, they deserve something in return for that.

Last I checked I don't pay tax when I buy something second hand. And also last I checked I couldn't stop paying taxes either. Would if I could, but I can't.

This works both ways btw. When a game is worth it's money I'll gladly buy it for full price. The thing is that EA games lately are hardly worth their money in the first place. If they're not remaking the same game for the 20th time without really adding anything to justify paying 50 bux for, they release a game that's only 20 hours long at best and has a story written by a retarded 2-year old.

EDIT: As for supporting online, they don't support shit. Most servers hosted by EA for multiplayer are taken offline within 2 years. And the same still stands, the costs for the server are already paid when the original dude bought the game. I don't see how letting a game change hands could put more stress on a server.

They include the price for the servers in the game price, but EA expects that some players will get bored and only play online for a short time.

Reselling the game is like having every player online for the duration the servers are working, and that's going to cost more to run than what was included in the game price.

That makes no sense.

If EA has a server up that can support 5000 people and they sell 5000 games, then the server will be at it's theoretical max. Even if all those 5000 people would resell their game to someone else, there would still only be 5000 people on those servers. Reselling your game doesn't magically create a 5001th player.

And any game company that offers multiplayer servers should make sure they are able to support all players. That's not the responsibility of the players, that's the responsibility of the developer. Either that or release it on the PC.

It depends if the price covers the cost of those 5000 copies being played every day for as long as the server's running, which could happen in theory if the players keep passing it on once they've had their fill.

I think the whole anti piracy thing is a waste, or at least on PC's it is. Since no matter what crazy protection they add into their game someone will always break it! Thus is its pretty much a waste of time IMO..

The used game market does more damage to the video game industry than piracy. If they want to take steps to stop people from buying used then I won't be mad at them. But then, I already buy all of my games new. Doesn't hurt me any.

Welcome to fallacy central, population: You.

The second hand market does damage to any commercial sector, not just the game industry. But I don't see big car companies complain that second hand cars are ruining their profit. Nor do I hear Dell complain about people selling their laptops secondhand.

It's very simple really. When you create something, that something has a basecost. The cost it takes to actually make the item. With computers and cars that is pretty straight forward. If you need 500 dollars in parts to assemble a computer then the basecost is 500 dollars. You add 100 dollars for profit and tada, you buy a 600 dollar laptop in the store. At this point the computer manufacturer already got all their money back. They have the 500 dollar base cost and the 100 dollar profit, so whatever happens with that computer next doesn't matter, they already sold it.

You can argue that the second hand market causes companies to sell less new units, but it can't cause a company to turn a loss over all the units sold.

With games however it's a completely different story. The production of a game these days can cost millions. On the flip side millions of them are sold if the game is a hit.

For example, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 was sold over 5 million times. Assuming that a copy costs 50 dollars (not even euro's), that would be:

5.000.000 x 50 = 250.000.000 dollars turnover. That's a quarter of a BILLION. And trust me, it doesn't cost 250 million dollars to produce a game. No sane game company would put that much money into game production.

Even if you were to assume that the entire production process (from the first concept sketch to the final product in the store) cost them 150 million, that game alone still made them 100 million profit.

And now suddenly the second hand market is damaging to their profit? Oh please... If there was ever an example of corporate greed then this would be it. And it's no surprise it comes from EA.

If I wrote a book, it is quite possible that through the second-hand market hundreds of people could read it while I sell only one copy. It's the reason rental copies of various media are more expensive than home copies. Different licenses.


What really bugs me is when DLC won't work when you're not on-line, especially when that prevents you from playing profiles that have used it.

Games that come with activation codes require different activation codes second hand. EA are allowing people to play these games for a small fee. You're all focusing on the wrong issue.

And what happens when you reinstall your OS and decide you want to play that old game again? You'll have to activate it again just the same. Does that mean you have to pay 10 bux to replay a game you already paid 50 bux for? How is that distinction made?

How is this a fallacy? It doesn't hurt me. I buy games new because I want my money to go to the developer. If you're saying that it's a fallacy because I'm basing my argument on the fact that it doesn't hurt me....well that doesn't make sense either. It doesn't hurt me because I was already philosophically in agreement with their position and acted accordingly.


As for Havoc and those who feel betrayed by this tactic: Grow up. If Ford had the ability to keep people from buying their cars used and not go to another manufacturer, do you not think that they would exercise it? They would. They absolutely would. And as things stand THEY ARE NOT STOPPING YOU FROM BUYING AND PLAYING THE GAME USED. They just aren't going to give you the free shit that I'm going to get. You don't like it? Don't buy the dlc.