EA: Online Pass can expire for new-game purchases, but it shouldn't

@nerdydesi1
I love online passes. Just like Steam, no one else can play the game you've bought. If they do, it's piracy.

I don't see PC users complaining about not being able to sell their Steam games.

DLC is scum though.

@TheTorch

Loaning out a console game I paid for is piracy now? That's news to me...

And I don't complain about not being able to sell my Steam games because I buy them for 1/4 the price of my console games a month after they come out

@nerdydesi1 Realistically, EA will close their servers for those games before the online pass expires.

@(Unverified)
haha... sad but true.

@EGOvoruhk

really now? you buy ALL console games on steam in one month after release for 1/4 of the price.. EVERYTIME? c'mon, i wish some some of you would actually bother to use your brain and give back replies that don't make you all look like fanboy douchebags.

and online passes are crap, and expiration dates is only adding insult to injury

@TheTorch

Online passes aren't being implemented to combat piracy, although that is an issue. They are mainly to combat pre-owned games sales, which amount to the same thing as far as publishers' profits are concerned.

These codes aren't DRM, the game still functions but certain elements are locked out (usually online play). It's just a way for them to get money from games sold pre-owned.

The games industry would be much healthier and better off if retailers were required to give [even a small] percentage of profits from secondhand sales to developers. After all, the mark-up on pre-owned games is ridiculous, often not much cheaper than a new game.

@PR0F3TA

I really don't understand the issue. I buy the game new, I enter the code. Done. Takes an extra 10 seconds and I never need to think about it again.

@OnToGloryReturns if you actually read the article, that's NOT the case.

Not our fault you drank the "Online Pass" kool-aid, the rest of us will sit over here in the "our rights as consumers are more important than one company's profits" corner. Coming from Australia, this will end rapidly here once enough people complain to Fair Trading/Consumer Affairs. EA will be tied up in a court case they can't win (pretty hard to fight government agencies in court).

@nerdydesi1

What's worse is the fact that these "Online Passes" are attached to your console, and not your Gamertag. In my personal experience with Dead Space 2 - I had redeemed the Online Pass on my living room Xbox - and then when I wanted to play online in my office, I couldn't because I didn't have an online pass for that console. You can't move the file (doesn't let you) and you can't redownload it. The only remedy was to make a request on the EA forums and one of the Mod's sent me an extra code.

I have no problem with Online Passes with it limits peoples abilities to play online without it - but I do have a problem if I can't use one online pass on multiple consoles (assuming I use my same Gamertag, which I do).

@nerdydesi1

Perhaps console gamers will now truly understand just how cumbersome and annoying bad DRM can be, instead of the usual "LOL PEE CEE GAMERZ ARE WHINY BABEES" quips.

Truth of the matter is, half the people saying that only said it because they themselves had zero firsthand experience, but now that the shoe's on the other foot let's see if egregiously bad DRM is as swept under the rug.

@PR0F3TA

Reading comprehension has never been and will never be a strong suit of yours.

@Styli IMO the game shouldn't even start without a valid online pass.

@sortius

What rights exactly? Your right not to have to take ten seconds to enter a code that protects the revenue stream of the company that brought you the product you chose to buy?

News flash: If you spent millions of dollars on development of a software product and millions on an online infrastructure for that product and people were purchasing the game through a venue (used) that you receive no compensation for you have every right to tap them for the online infrastructure you developed for paying customers (paying you not some upscale pawn shop).

It's also a misconception that if you lend the game out that person has no online access. That system has a 48hr guest pass.

And make no mistake I fall all over myself when it comes to consumer rights but the used business is an anathema to the industry for the companies that actually produce these games.

Bottom line: buy the game new and it's not an issue

@Styli

Except used games are where the game retailers actually make their profits, and even those profits aren't huge.

For new games, retailers make pennies on the dollar. They pay almost the full MSRP to the publisher for the games.

For new consoles, they literally make just about nothing.

Used games are where they make their profit. And looking at GameStop's latest earnings release from a few weeks back, it shows those profits aren't that much. They had over $1.5 billion in sales, and only had a profit of something like $53 million. That's less than 2% profit margin, and most of those profits came from used game sales.

Now, should we look up EA's or Activision's earnings and see the difference in profit margins? EA had profits of $221 million on $999 million in sales earlier this year.... or 22.12% profit margin.

Slight difference, no?

@TheTorch

Your definition of piracy seems flawed. Especially with the First Sale Doctrine being upheld by the Supreme Court of the USA multiple times in the past.

@Styli You're kidding, right? Can you imagine if used bookstores were required to send a fee to book publishers for every used book they sold? Basically, that's a scenario that would put everybody but Amazon out of business.

If you really want a used market with only GameStop, Amazon, and GameFly participating, then sounds like you have exactly the right idea for getting it.

@GeneralAntilles

Book publishers and authors tried to do this many years ago. It's actually the entire reason the First Sale Doctrine exists.

@(Unverified)

The problem there is that you're comparing completely different business models so the comaprison in margin isn't relevant (ex: Gamestop's CGS includes operating expenses for thousands of locations)

Their margin on used games is huge. Typically a brand new game will trade in for $25-30 and sell for $44.99-$54.99 which is close to 100% profit margin. Even figuring small dollar sales on say an old Madden that may trade in for $2.00 is then sold for $17.99 and there the margin skyrockets.

@OnToGloryReturns

Its a common misconception that people and companies think that they are entitled to money for a product they come out with. No. That is NOT the case. They are ONLY entitled to the money that they earn. They earn that money by producing a product that is worthy of purchasing new in the first place, rather than being a "so-so" title that people can wait for. EA and other companies are doing this "online pass" crap because they don't want to take the time to up the bar on quality, but still want to make money.

That's an aspect of what we call the free market. You make a crap product and make it just as overpriced as all the other worthy/unworthy products in the market, and you can expect to see it's sales drop off after the first week through used sales. Again, if they want combat used game sales, they need to make products that people actually want, not scam people through online passes. Its also our right (and our duty) to not support these kinds of money-grab tactics. I personally will not buy any more games that come with an online pass of any kind (after making a few uninformed purchases- Dead Space 2 and Rage).

@MrClickerson

Regardless of the fact the your first sentence is one of the dumbest things I've ever read please explain how the online pass is a cash grab when you are not paying anything extra for it.

The EA game I bought in 2007 with no online pass: $59.99
The EA game I bought in 2011 with an online pass: $59.99

the difference was the five seconds it took to type in the code.

The 'so-so' EA game I waited for a price drop on in 2009 with no online pass: $39.99
The 'so-so' EA game I waited for a price drop on in 2011 with an online pass: $39.99

the difference was the five seconds it took to type in the code.

@OnToGloryReturns

And what about the USED EA game you bought from 2007 and the USED EA game you bought from 2011? The USED EA game from 2011 cost 10 dollars more, otherwise you are left with a partial product. And do you honestly think that Gamestop isn't going to mark the price up on that used game when they include the online pass code?

If you took two equally popular games released at approximately the same time, one from EA with online pass, one from another company with no such thing, which one do you think would yield you more trade in value, and which one do you think would be resold for less? Use your brain, fool.

So OF COURSE the online pass is a cash grab, exactly as you described it. They feel they're entitled to money they haven't EARNED. If people aren't buying their game new as opposed to used, that is THEIR fault! They didn't produce a product people wanted badly enough that they couldn't wait for the reduced prices of a used copy, so they deserve to take a loss on what they invested in it, but they certainly earned what copies they DID sell.

@MrClickerson

Sorry but that's 3rd grade logic. I don't buy used games because I support the actual industry and not some upscale pawn shop that's a leech on it.

You don't think they 'earned' a sale by putting out a good enough product - fine. But if that person who bought the game used wants to play on the online infrastructure that EA paid good money to implement then they have a right to be compensated.

It's like saying you didn't earn the right to be my friend so I can just borrow your stuff whenever I want even though you paid for it.

@MrClickerson

Here's another flaw in your argument:

"They didn't produce a product people wanted badly enough that they couldn't wait for the reduced prices of a used copy, so they deserve to take a loss on what they invested in it, but they certainly earned what copies they DID sell."

That's going on the assumption that every copy that didn't sell at full price was due to 'quality'
The fact is that many people are savvy consumers and simply wait for better prices. I really want to play Skyrim - widely regarded as one of the best games this year if not this gen - but I'm going to wait for the $49.99 fully patched GOTY edition. I'm also waiting for a price drop on NHL 12 - a phenomenal game but I just don't like paying $60 for sports games.

In these two cases the publisher/developer didn't 'fail' to earn my money - it's purely a buying decision on my part based on my experience and finances.

When you buy a game used you have no right to access anything from the publisher/developer as you didn't provide them with any revenue. Argue with GameStop for free online access.

@MrClickerson

"If you took two equally popular games released at approximately the same time, one from EA with online pass, one from another company with no such thing, which one do you think would yield you more trade in value, and which one do you think would be resold for less? Use your brain, fool."

Sorry, but if you have a problem with the trade-in value your issue is with GameStop, not EA.
EA has absolutely no obligation to see to it that your game trades in for a price you deem fair.

@OnToGloryReturns

"When you buy a game used you have no right to access anything from the publisher/developer as you didn't provide them with any revenue. Argue with GameStop for free online access."

You kind of have it backwards though. EA, Ubi and the like are the ones that should be pulling out all the stops trying to get gamers to actually hold on to their games as opposed to trading them in. Even if a gamer bought a game used, if he/she holds on to it because of the awesome multiplayer that was fun, free and seamless, then hey, that's one less second hand copy in the market competing with the retail copies. Online pass gives used game buyers even less incentive to hold on to their games and keep them out of the used game market.

@Altairio

Sorry, but that's backwards logic too.

EA can't spend time wondering how to keep used copies they've already made no money on from recirculating in the marketplace.

And in fact if that used copy goes back into circulation it's impossible to quantify how it will necessarily compete against the retail sale of a new copy with x amount of used copies already out there.

The bottom line is that EA owes nothing to the used market or those that partake in it.

I agree that the passes expiring is incovenient, and while EA will provide another code at no charge as a consumer I'd still like a more user friendly, streamlined process but that's a relatively easy fix.

I repeat: Buy it new, at full retail, on sale, or after a price drop and the online pass is not an issue.

@OnToGloryReturns

So here's what you're saying: Buy new. But guess what? People who buy new still sell & trade in their games too. You're only looking at the demand side, when there's a supply side to the equation as well. You have to incentivize them to keep it. And I can tell you this much is certain, if someone has a product they no longer use, and they can get value for it, you're fighting an uphill battle trying to get them to hold on to it out of the goodness of their heart or some whacked sense of corporate loyalty. This is why game companies actually SHOULD care about the second hand value of their games. It's a clear indicator of the consumers' willingness to hold on to their product.

@Altairio

I think that's a completely subjective argument. Incentivising buyers to keep their product has no measurable, tangible benefit to a publisher. They already have your money from the purchase - keeping the game longer may keep it out of used circulation but the measurable affect of that is, as I said before, impossible to quantify.

One can even argue it doesn't affect DLC purchases - if someone likes a game enough to purchase the DLC it stands to reason they like the game enough to hold on to it in most cases.

Bottom line: a consumers 'willingness to hold on to it' has no tangible effect on their profit margin. And again, as a publisher that invested millions in product development and online infrastructure they owe nothing to the second hand market, materially or otherwise.

@OnToGloryReturns

Well that's just, like, your opinion man. Honestly you're just being obtuse now. It's not a subjective argument. It's sound economic theory. Cross price elasticity of demand for substitute products. Most consumers either buy a given game used or new, not both. They're substitutes. As the price of one goes up demand for the other increases. So it's in a publisher's best interest that the used game price/value be higher than lower. Why do you think they're trying to add $10 to the price of used games with online pass in the first place? They're trying to increase the cost of the substitute product. But that bet hinges on the assumption that most used game buyers care about the online pass content, which is a big assumption, and ignores the possibility that they will skip that content altogether and move on to the keep vs sell/trade decision even sooner. Keeping the supply of used games down, through product retention, increases the used game cost, which in turn increases demand for new copies.

You're welcome to believe that used games harm the industry, but that's not at all proven. You're welcome to think intangible benefits don't matter, or that product retention is unimportant, the value immeasurable, and that the publisher's concerns over product satisfaction end at the point of sale, but I certainly wouldn't want to be a customer of yours if that's your outlook on things.

@Altairio

Sorry man, I spent over a decade in the retail channel of the industry as a buyer for one of the largest big box chains in the country.

Publishers despise the used segment of the marketplace and I can tell you first hand that they do not place any consideration whatsoever on trade-in values from used game retailers.

"Why do you think they're trying to add $10 to the price of used games with online pass in the first place? They're trying to increase the cost of the substitute product"

That is factually inaccurate - the online pass system was soley implemented to recoup costs of having people on their online infrastructure who did not give them revenue at retail. Publisher's recognize that the used game consumer will largely remain so.

I can also tell you first hand that publishers have nothing but contempt for stores like GameStop. They maintain a reluctant partnership with them due to the exposure they give their products but if GS were to go away tomorrow those new game sales would be absorbed by the big box retailers and online outlets.

People can debate endlessly over whether or not the used games business hurts the industry but I can absolutely garauntee you that the publisher/developer side overwhelmingly feels that it does and when my company dipped their toe into used games the backlash was significant and unmistakable.

And sorry to burst your bubble but publisher's concern with product quality does in fact largely end with the point of sale. Look around at the badly tested product that is routinely released now due to the 'release and patch' mentality that dominates publishing. Been following the PS3 Skyrim issues? There's a reason review copies were not released - get the game out, get it in people's hands and deal with the fallout (pun intended) later.

And I'll say it again - publishers and developers owe absolutely nothing the the used segment of the market. Used prices and trade in prices have absolutely no effect on the pricing strategy of game publishers - none.

@OnToGloryReturns

"...Publishers despise the used segment of the marketplace..."

No shit. I never said they care about trade in values. I said resale price & second hand value, in comparison to the retail price, is a healthy indicator of product retention which is what publisher's SHOULD be concerned with if used game sales bother them so much.

"...That is factually inaccurate..."

You say PR-speak tomAto, I say economic strategy tomato.

"...publishers have nothing but contempt for stores like GameStop..."

I'm sure. But used games add liquidity for a target demographic who ironically have the most limited funds. The day used games die is the same day new game sales numbers take a significant hit. GS is a convenient scapegoat, but the business model works, which is why it's spreading to more a more retailers. Plus there's always ebay/craigslist/etc to consider. As long as there's a product that can be resold, there's going to be a market for it.

"...publisher/developer side overwhelmingly feels that (the used game market) does (hurt them)..."

Irrelevant. Whether or not that's true it doesn't change the fact that the used game market and retail markets are symbiotic.

"...publisher's concern with product quality does in fact largely end with the point of sale..."

To their own detriment. Isn't the fact Bethesda continues to work on patches prove they ARE committed to a satisfactory customer experience?

"And I'll say it again - publishers and developers owe absolutely nothing the the used segment of the market. Used prices and trade in prices have absolutely no effect on the pricing strategy of game publishers - none."

Keep saying it all you want. It doesn't make it so.

@Altairio

It's so because that's the way it is kid. Dealing with all the things I've dealt with in the industry for the past ten years or so I think I'm confident in saying I've forgotten more about how the business end of it works than you'll ever know.

News flash: the used market has an expiration date and it's coming fast. Do not be surpised one bit, because I won't, if the next Xbox and Playstation are digital media only. There's already very strong rumors that GTA V will not be retailed as a disc and GameStop has been preparing for the elimination of physical media for about three years now. And after the first gen of purely digital consoles hits the lion's share of the used business goes out the window. The GameStop regional VP I'm aquainted with have talked about it often and he gives them about 8 more years of physical media altogether at the most.

The industry wants it in a huge way - no more profits being bleeded by used retailers, no more physical packaging and distribution and all the overhead associated with it.

Like it or not, these are facts. Publishers have one, single, solitary concern: making money. And yes, sometimes that is to their detriment long term but all that matters to them is the next fiscal quarter and showing growth to stockholders - that's why Skyrim and a multitude of other games are released by a deadline, quality be damned. And there are some great exceptions out there - Valve and the Naughty Dog/Sony realtionship come to mind but by and large it's get it shipped, get it shipped, get it shipped.

@OnToGloryReturns

Cool story bro. Well, looks like we've reached that point in the debate of relying on credentials, condescension and red herrings to make a point, so I'll bid you adieu. Good day sir!

@Altairio

Facts, too. They always help.

@Altairio

Didn't mean to condescend but seriously, the credentials are extremely relevant to the issue at hand and what I stated are not red herrings.

Think about it this way - your analysis of the economic factors of value retention for video games is so poignant, so groundbreaking, that the entire industry completely ignores it and never, ever factors it into their pricing strategy.

A perfect example would be Black Ops prior to MW3. One of the biggest most in demand titles of its' period and aside from some sales did not see a price drop at major retailers until the expected MW3 release window, despite thousands and thousands of used copies in circulation.

@Axcalibur They are also attached to the Account that Redeemed the Code.

All you had to do was take the account that downloaded the Online Pass via Memory Stick or you could of recovered the Account on the Console in your office.

(It's now even easier thanks to Cloud Storage. You can now have your Account on any Console. All you have to do is Recover it on your chosen Console (You need your Email/Password for this) and input your Password to log into it. You can also make your Console remember that Password so you don't have to type it in.)

And then all you would of had to do is go to your Download History and re-download the Online Pass. Because you're Account Redeemed it. It get's a License that allows you to use DLC on any other Console as long as your signed into the Account that owns that DLC.

Here's a hint to help you get to your Download History.

Xbox Guide Button + Scroll all the way to the right (you should in the Settings Tab) + Go down and click Account Management = You should now see a Download History button :P CLICK IT and scroll down to the dlc you wish to re-download.

SEE HOW SIMPLE THAT IS. Gah People are so stupid sometimes.

@wqerty I think that's pretty ignorant to label all DLC as bad. Yes, I hate on-disc DLC, but there has been some terrific DLC in the past.
Fallout, Mass Effect 2, LBP 2, Burnout Paradise, Bioshock 2's Minerva's Den, Portal 2, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, Dead Space 2's Severed, RDR's Zombie stuff, GTAIV's Gay Tony/Lost & Damned, MK and Batman's fighters, RE5's Lost in Nightmares, and a bunch of stuff I can't remember.

@ChaosBladez Some DLC is developed by outside studios, and that is great for them to be able to make their take on a game. Since it is something optional to purchase there is no harm.. until you realize that many game assets were already in the disc. Then again.. supposedly we don't own the game, just the access to it.. =/

@ChaosBladez
Most of what you named would be known as expansion packs in the ye ole days of honest gaming business.

DLC is crap. Expansion packs are excellent. And the few pieces of pay for DLC that does it right certainly doesn't make up for all the evil and misdeeds the other DLC crap does.

DLC simply proves how stupid consumers can be and how apt the word "consumer" is for some people.

Still, it's hard to fault a company for giving what idiots want because if it didn't sell, it wouldn't be made or published.

@Mmmmz expansion packs were paid content as well and usual cost a lot more and each had a CD key to activate that was linked to the master cd key.

@wqerty At least for consoles, I prefer physical boxed expansion packs over DLC since I can still rent, sell and borrow those unlike digital-only DLC.

@wqerty

but every single one of you has bought DLC, right?

so STFU and stop acting like pretentious douche bags. WE ALL created the DLC trend. it was developers that took it to horrible levels like EA's decision to sell guns on BFBC2 (that backfired) some get away with it (Horse Armor?)... but the fact is that WE ARE ALL responsible for it.

@(Unverified)

Expansion packs contain a HELL of alot more content than a couple of costumes, or a map pack or two.

For the price of a couple fighters, or 2 map packs, you can get an ENTIRE new campaign or area in most games.

@PR0F3TA

No, the only dlc ive ever bought for a game was a few track packs for rockband on the xbox360.

And i've said this all along, it's the consumer's fault. 60$ games, dlc, online passes, paying to play p2p online (xbox live), it's all the consumer's fault.

And for pc gamers, dlc has killed user content and modding. Publishers are so afraid of user content killing their dlc sales that they've stopped making mod tools, they've started locking out servers and making excuses. Dedicated Modders and mappers don't need special dumbed down tools, they just need proper access to the game's files, so when companies like activision lock out their content and claim that mod support is on it's way, then announce that it will be available after the game is essentially dead and done with it's waves of dlc, well you should get the idea of why.

@kvngomez no one in theory but some people will probably feel cheated knowing they payed for something and can't play it even though they may never use it.