Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

June 1, 2010 -

While you (and I) were enjoying the Memorial Day weekend, the owner of an independent videogame store in Columbus, Ohio recorded and uploaded a new YouTube video in which he further assails the  Online Pass initiative of Electronic Arts.

EA’s measure, for the uninitiated, would tie online gameplay to codes that come with select new titles, meaning that purchasers of used games, which feature Online Pass, would need to shell out $10.00 for a new code in order to play online.

The Level One store owner previously stated that the introduction of Online Pass would destroy the buy, sell, trade business.

In his latest video, the owner notes that buy, sell, trade businesses have been operating for over 20 years and he states that he has “yet to hear of the detrimental damage they have done to developers.” He noted that Electronic Arts continued to grow over that same time frame, adding in a text note that “EA has bought and closed more Small Devlopers than the Used game market ever did damage to…”

The owner runs through the financials of EA and the salary of CEO John Riccitiello, before offering, “When John Riccitiello makes $8 an hour working at the food court down the hall from me, he can come in and tell me that he is going to punish gamers for wanting to save a few dollars. Until then he’s just another rich guy, an extortionist, motivated by pure selfishness, preying on the rest of us.”
 

Thanks again Bobby!


Comments

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

It's not the developers that are worried about profits. I nmany cases they're jsut glad if you enjoyed the product, and more often than not the publishers over work and under pay them.

The problem is that, indeed, the publishers are rich, and more often than not, for people like them, those profits aren't enough, they for some reason have to keep maing more. That's why the "trickle down" argument never holds water, as those who have a shitloado fm oney are less inclined to spend it and more inclined to want more to hoard.

That's what EA is more or less guilty of here.

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

"It's not the developers that are worried about profits. I nmany cases they're jsut glad if you enjoyed the product, and more often than not the publishers over work and under pay them."

Yeah it's not like they depend on the games making money so they can continue working or anything. *facepalm

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

Well, it's a good thing games have been crap for the last 4 years because I haven't got involved in a game since 2006.

But yea; The digital age is corrupt. But you have to realize this -- What else are these big companies gonna do when crying about piracy is not enough to nazi up everything? Raise the prices, and add charges to anything they can.

----------------------------------------

"Because this town is under the stranglehold of a few tight eyed Tree Huggers who would rather play Hacky Sack than lock up the homeless" -- Birch Barlow

---------------------------------------- "Because this town is under the stranglehold of a few tight eyed Tree Huggers who would rather play Hacky Sack than lock up the homeless" -- Birch Barlow

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

Blablabla extortion blabla big corporation blabla nazi

The customer isn't ever going to have to pay that $10. The pass is free when buying the game new, so he has no point there. And if stores are smart they'll lower the price of used games consequently. His only valid point is that it lowers the resale value of games. He's talking as if EA was stealing money from a starving baby. Oh wait, he actually litterally makes that argument. Jesus Christ.

Maybe if these guys didn't buy recent games for like $20 then turn around and sell them for $10 less than the new copies, this wouldn't be necessary.

I understand why he would be scared, as a store owner, but this is pathetic and manipulative. Reading the comments in that video is depressing, it seems like so many people are buying that BS.

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

Say the stores are smart and they lower the price of these used games by $10 to compensate for the $10 the customer must pay for an Online Pass. That means to keep the same profit margin on a used game sale, they must lower their buying price by $10, as well. As such, a customer buys Madden 2011 new for $60, plays it for a few weeks and brings it back to the store to trade it in. If that store used to give back, say, $20 for the relatively new game (according to your assumption), now they'll only give $10. The original consumer is now at a loss of $10 as compared to the buy/sell/trade system that's been in effect all these years because of the lowered resale value. They may even choose not to bother selling the game back and just let it wither away on a shelf forever, which in their perspective makes the whole experience just a waste of money.

On top of that, the used game buyer pays EA $10 to access online content, if they so choose. The same goes for a person who may purchase that same disc from the 2nd buyer, or several friends who borrow the game from someone else, or (god forbid) anyone playing online with splitscreen. Not to mention a copy of the disc being acquired and passed out by a rental system such as GameFly or Blockbuster: that single disc - which was purchased new from EA to begin with - may change hands a dozen times, and if even half of those people try to go online, EA makes a full $60 in revenue.

For basically nothing.

The entirety of the system simply makes gaming as a hobby more expensive for the entire gaming community. In one sense, EA is just creating a rental system that pays them instead of the used games seller. It's another step towards a monthly subscription service for their games, which is clearly what they want to accomplish.

On the other hand, why are people still buying the same sports games every year? Write a letter to EA asking for a Madden MMO and get it over with.

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

He never once mentioned that the customer buying a NEW game would have to pay that price its the USED games or second hand games in any way that would have to pay the $10 (try watching the video 1st before commenting).

If I buy a game and I decide to gift that game to my friend once I'm done playing it, should my friend really be expected to hand money over to EA? 

If I buy a car and I decide to give that car to my son in a few years should my son be expected to hand Honda a few hundred dollars so he can get his airconditioning to unlock? 

Why is digital media being looked at these days as not something you own? I went out and bought that DVD/Blu-ray so why can't I do with it what I want? Why does the person who buys it off of me not retain the full ownership that I had when I bought it in the 1st place? Thats the problem with this day and age, no one has ownership of anything any more, its all just a "licence".

 

 

 

 

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

In this case you do own the content on the disc, you just don't own the multiplayer servers. You paid to access those when you bought the game new and your friend is paying to access them when you gift it.

You own your car, but you pay the government a fee every year for the right to drive on the roads. (car license)

You own your computer, but you pay your ISP for the right to use their servers to access the internet. You own your game but you pay EA for the right to access their servers for online play. Seems completely legit in regards to other media and mediums to me.

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

So do you have anything that actually refutes the arguments made in the video? How exactly is EA hurting that requires them to charge that $10 for online play? How is this NOT going to hurt used game sellers? Please provide details to support that this video is nothing but BS.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

What makes the used game seller's (retailor in this case) complaint about making less money any more valid then EAs complaint about the same thing. It seems to me your opinion is unfairly biased against the people who actually make the content.

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

There's really not much in there to refute. He just harps on "grr big corporation grr" for 11 minutes.

Yeah I do not know why EA would need more money. I also do not know why EA would need a reason to want to get more money. If you can tell me why, then I'll bother with this awesome argument.

The whole point of the pass is to make used games a less interesting proposition so yes, this will hurt used games sellers. Not the college student, not the young married couple, not the kid working at the food court. If he wanted my sympathy, he should be playing up more of the indy store card and less of the nazi extortion of starving babies one.

[Edit: Actually, come to think of it, and I'm ashamed to not have realized this before, this won't even hurt used games sellers, since all they need to do is buy games for $10 less to compensate for the reduction in price of used games. ie instead of buying for $20 and selling for $50, they can buy for $10 and sell for $40. They make the same profit, and the customer pays the exact same price, except now the publisher gets their share instead of having one sale entirely cannibalized. So, the only legitimate victim here is the guy who plans on selling or handing down their game afterwards.]

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

 So, the only legitimate victim here is the guy who plans on selling or handing down their game afterwards.

You don't see this as a problem!?

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

That is a valid concern and I really wish that was being discussed instead of the misinformed nerdrage I'm seeing right now.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Should 'Hatred' have been removed from Steam Greenlight?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
E. Zachary KnightIf you are downloading a copy in order to bypass the DRM, then you are legally in the wrong. Ethically, if you bought the game, it doesn't matter where you download it in the future.12/19/2014 - 12:06pm
InfophileEZK: Certainly better that way, though not foolproof. Makes me think though: does it count as piracy if you download a game you already paid for, just not from the place you paid for it at? Ethically, I'd say no, but legally, probably yes.12/19/2014 - 11:20am
ZippyDSMleeAnd I still spent 200$ in the last month on steam/GOG stuff sales get me nearly every time ><12/19/2014 - 10:55am
ZippyDSMleeMaskedPixelante:And this is why I'm a one legged bandit.12/19/2014 - 10:51am
ZippyDSMleeE. Zachary Knight: I buy what I can as long as I can get cracks for it...then again it I could have gotton Lords of the Fallen for 30 with DLC I would have ><12/19/2014 - 10:50am
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/12/19/marvel-vs-capcom-origins-leaving-online-storefronts-soon/ Speaking of "last chance to buy", Marvel vs. Capcom Origins is getting delisted from all major storefronts. Behold the wonders of the all digital future.12/19/2014 - 9:59am
MaskedPixelanteSeriously, the so-called "Last Chance" sale was up to 80% off, while this one time only return sale goes for a flat 85% off with a 90% off upgrade if you buy the whole catalogue.12/19/2014 - 9:37am
E. Zachary KnightInfophile, Tha is why I buy only DRM-free games.12/19/2014 - 9:37am
MaskedPixelanteNordic is back on GOG for one weekend only. And at 85% off no less, which is kind of a slap in the face to people who paid more during the "NORDIC IS LEAVING FOREVER BUY NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE" sale, but whatever...12/19/2014 - 9:28am
InfophileRe PHX's link: This is one of the reasons the digital revolution isn't all it's cracked up to be. There's also the flip side where Sony can block access to games you've bought if they ban your account for unrelated reasons. All power is theirs.12/19/2014 - 8:52am
MaskedPixelantehttp://uplay.ubi.com/#!/en-US/events/uplay-15-days You can win FREE GAMES FOR A YEAR! Unfortunately, they're Ubisoft games.12/18/2014 - 6:29pm
Papa MidnightAh, so it was downtime. I've been seeing post appear in my RSS feed, but I was unable to access GamePolitics today across several ISPs.12/18/2014 - 6:06pm
james_fudgeSorry for the downtime today, folks.12/18/2014 - 5:54pm
PHX Corphttp://www.craveonline.com/gaming/articles/801575-sony-refuses-offer-refund-playstation-game-fraudulently-purchased-hacker Sony Refuses to Offer Refund for PlayStation Game Fraudulently Purchased by Hacker12/18/2014 - 1:43pm
NeenekoMakes sense to me, and sounds kinda cool. One cool thing about Minecraft is the meta game, you can implement other game types within its mechanics. There are servers out there with plots, an episodic single player one sound kinda cool12/18/2014 - 11:07am
MaskedPixelantehttps://mojang.com/announcing-minecraft-story-mode/ Umm... what?12/18/2014 - 10:24am
NeenekoThat would make sense. Theaters probably can not afford the liability worry or a drop in ticket sales from worried people. Sony on the other hand can take a massive writeoff, and might even be able to bypass distribution contracts for greater profit.12/18/2014 - 10:03am
ConsterNeeneko: I thought they cancelled it because the major cinema franchises were too scared of terrorist attacks to show the film?12/18/2014 - 9:55am
Neeneko@Wonderkarp - there is still a lot of debate regarding if the movie was a motive or not. Unnamed officials say yes, the timeline says no.12/18/2014 - 9:10am
NeenekoSomething does not smell right though, Sony is no stranger to being hacked, so why cancel this film? For that matter, they are still not giving in to hacker's original demands as far as I know.12/18/2014 - 9:06am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician