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

Who's responsible for crappy Netflix performance on Verizon?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Sleaker@MP - Looked up hitbox, thanks.07/24/2014 - 9:40pm
Matthew WilsonI agree, but to me given other known alternatives google seems to the the best option.07/24/2014 - 6:30pm
Andrew EisenTo be clear, I have no problem with Google buying it, I'm just concerned it will make a slew of objectively, quantifiably bad changes to Twitch just as it's done with YouTube over the years.07/24/2014 - 6:28pm
Matthew WilsonI doubt yahoo has the resources to pull it off, and I not just talking about money.07/24/2014 - 6:15pm
SleakerI wouldn't have minded a Yahoo purchase, probably would have been a better deal than Tumblr seeing as they paid the same for it...07/24/2014 - 6:13pm
MaskedPixelanteIt's the golden age of Hitbox, I guess.07/24/2014 - 6:08pm
Matthew Wilsonagain twitch was going to get bought. It was just who was going to buy it . Twitch was not even being able to handle the demand, so hey needed a company with allot of infrastructure to help them. I can understand why you would not want Google to buy it .07/24/2014 - 5:49pm
Andrew Eisen"Google is better than MS or Amazon" Wow. Google, as I mentioned earlier, progressively makes almost everything worse and yet there are still two lesser options. Again, wow!07/24/2014 - 5:43pm
Andrew EisenI don't know. MS, in my experience, is about 50/50 on its products. It's either fine or it's unusable crap. Amazon, well... I've never had a problem buying anything from them but I don't use any of their products or services so I couldn't really say.07/24/2014 - 5:42pm
Matthew WilsonGoogle is better than MS or Amazon.07/24/2014 - 5:33pm
Sleaker@AE - I've never seen youtube as a great portal to interact with people from a comment perspective. like ever. The whole interface doesn't really promote that.07/24/2014 - 5:28pm
Andrew EisenNor I. From a content producer's perspective, almost every change Google implements makes the service more cumbersome to use. It's why I set up a Facebook fan page in the first place; it was becoming too difficult to connect with my viewers on YouTube.07/24/2014 - 4:50pm
Sleakerwonder if anyone is going to try and compete with google, I'm not a huge fan of the way they manage their video services.07/24/2014 - 4:41pm
Andrew EisenIt happened. Google bought Twitch. http://venturebeat.com/2014/07/24/googles-1b-purchase-of-twitch-confirmed-joins-youtube-for-new-video-empire/07/24/2014 - 4:28pm
MaskedPixelanteI hope Nintendo actually follows through with the DS Virtual Console, that sounds like it could be cool.07/24/2014 - 2:15pm
james_fudgePeople don't deny it persay, they bristle at the idea that it's a "problem" that nneds to be "fixed."07/24/2014 - 2:15pm
Papa MidnightRacism and Misogny are heavily prevalent in the gaming and online arena. Getting people to actually admit that, however...07/24/2014 - 11:42am
Papa MidnightThat very thing is somthing that anyone who has been subjected to racial-based targeting online could actually state that they've experienced.07/24/2014 - 11:41am
Papa MidnightPerfect example: "I have yet to talk to a man who has had to call a police officer due to a stalker, only to be told nothing can be done until they are physically assaulted."07/24/2014 - 11:40am
Papa MidnightNot that said communities are mutually exclusive. Even the very first comment on that last article equates women in the gaming industry with being the n-word. Despicable, aetestable, and (sadly enough) this is not an uncommon presence in either community.07/24/2014 - 11:35am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician