EA Makes $10 - 15 Million Off Online Pass

September 9, 2011 -

According to a Gamasutra report cover comments from Electronic Arts CFO Eric Brown, EA's "Online Pass" has made the company $10-$15 million since. Interestingly enough, the company categorizes that figure as "not a lot of money." I suppose to a company the size of EA that amount of money is chicken scratch to them.

"The revenues we derive from that haven't been dramatic. I'd say they're in the $10-$15 million range since we initiated the program," he said.

He went on to say that while the amount of money gained from the program has not been dramatic, all this "found revenue" has come from consumers who were consuming "bandwidth for free."

EA launched its Online Pass earlier this year as a way to earn some money off of used game buyers who wanted to play their games online. The Online Pass typically cost used game buyers an additional $10 - which, oddly enough, puts the price of a used game + Online Pass near the cost of a new game, typically.

Source: Gamasutra


Comments

Re: EA Makes $10 - 15 Million Off Online Pass

"Found revenue" makes it sound like it was missing. It wasn't.

Re: EA Makes $10 - 15 Million Off Online Pass

Bandwidth consumed via communication with your end user is just another cost of business, like say, electricity. In the long run, trying to recoup such costs from your customers is bad for your business and infrastructure.

If you are really worried about bandwidth, get a connection to a tier 1 ISP (a penny a gigabyte) or become an ISP to yourself.

Re: EA Makes $10 - 15 Million Off Online Pass

Forcing me to use there privacy invasive software will preclude me from buying any of their games in the future.

Re: EA Makes $10 - 15 Million Off Online Pass

...all this "found revenue" has come from consumers who were consuming "bandwidth for free."

Uh, you do realize the original owner of the game is no longer consuming your bandwidth, right?

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: EA Makes $10 - 15 Million Off Online Pass

Any sensible business model would account for the average life time of a game for a single player. In other words, costs allocated from the sale of the title would generally account for the fact that the purchaser of the game will see their gameplay wane. When you resell a game this behaviour changes such that there is likely an increase in the amount of network service usage per disc sold and I would expect this increases with every second hand sale of the game.

Game publishers/developers have to absorb a huge amount of risk for any game they publish, EA is no exception here. Personally I don't have an issue with them charging for online access so long as the fee is reasonable ($10 is reasonable), the fact that you are paying close to new disc rates after the purchase isn't the fault of EA, it is the price gouging that occurs by the reseller. Your beef should be with GameStop (or where ever you bought the game), clearly the second hand value of the game is not inline with your expectations.

Re: EA Makes $10 - 15 Million Off Online Pass

Interesting way of looking at it but the sensible business model would then account for the used market and understand that, thanks to second hand sales, the total number of users might not wane as quickly.

And to be clear, I have exactly zero problems with the "online pass" idea.  Thanks to GameStop's absurd used pricing, I think it's an excellent way to make buying new a more attractive prospect (unless the used buyer didn't care about online in the first place).  I would expect GameStop (and I don't shop there so maybe they do this) to knock an additional $10 off the used price of games that do the "online pass" thing.

 

Andrew Eisen

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Whose next half decade of superhero films are you most looking forward to?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
quiknkoldhttp://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2014/10/femme-doms-of-videogames-bayonetta-doesnt-care-if.html10/30/2014 - 1:15pm
quiknkoldIf he calls himself the Effing Robot King, I can die happy10/30/2014 - 1:14pm
Michael ChandraAlso, yay for him being Ultron. :D10/30/2014 - 1:08pm
Michael Chandra"We become who we are. You can’t judge a book by its cover, but you can by its first few chapters. And most certainly by its last."10/30/2014 - 1:07pm
prh99""We are what we repeatedly do..."10/30/2014 - 12:30pm
Andrew EisenI would, however, call someone who routinely kills time by playing random games on their phone a gamer.10/30/2014 - 12:15pm
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, AE, Yeah, that is why I have a hard time understanding critics of Sarkeesian. I look at her videos as a Feminist review of video games, but for some reason, others look at them as personal attacks.10/30/2014 - 12:01pm
E. Zachary KnightDefinitely a good answer. That is the way I lean. If you actively chose to stop gaming, or just stopped out of habit, then yeah, you are no longer a gamer.10/30/2014 - 11:45am
Matthew WilsonAE i agree, but it is worth pointing out the fact that that is whats happening.10/30/2014 - 11:45am
quiknkoldbehavior to warrant having a Title that doesnt involve a piece of paper.10/30/2014 - 11:43am
quiknkoldwaiting in line. Thats not being a Gamer. Thats akin to me reading a Pamphlet in line and calling myself an active reader. or watching a movie trailer on a tv in walmart and calling myself an active movie goer. There has to be some form of repetitive10/30/2014 - 11:42am
quiknkoldbeing A Gamer is a Conscious decision. I am consciously engaging in this form of media and showing some form of enthusiasm. The only person I Wouldnt call a gamer is somebody who has a random game on their phone just to kill 5 minutes cause they are10/30/2014 - 11:41am
E. Zachary KnightSo how much time must pass since the last time you played a game before you are no longer a gamer?10/30/2014 - 11:33am
Andrew Eisen"Plays" is present tense so the clarification doesn't seem necessary to me.10/30/2014 - 11:18am
quiknkoldI would change that from "One who plays games" To "One who currently plays games". Like my friend as a kid playd games but then he stopped and hasnt for the last decade+ so I wouldnt call him a Gamer.10/30/2014 - 11:16am
Andrew EisenHmm, that sounds like a great idea for a series of articles! I bet they'd be well-received and not taken the complete wrong way at all!10/30/2014 - 11:12am
Andrew EisenThat's right, gamer simply means one who plays games. That's it. The idea that "gamer" refers to something very limited and specific, well, that's no longer applicable in this day and age of mainstream gaming.10/30/2014 - 11:12am
Andrew EisenMatthew - As I said last night, that is not a bad thing. Different types of reviews to serve different interests is a GOOD thing and should be encouraged! There is not, nor should there be, only one way to review a game or anything else.10/30/2014 - 11:01am
ZippyDSMleeAnyone see this? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/29/1339617/-Cartoon-Gamergate-Contagion-Spreads?detail=facebook10/30/2014 - 10:55am
E. Zachary KnightNeeneko, Matthew, yeah, there is no "wrong" way to review a game. It all depends on who the reviewer wants reading the review.10/30/2014 - 10:48am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician