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

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

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelanteThis whole Twitch thing just reeks of Google saying "You thought you could get away from us and our policies. That's adorable."07/25/2014 - 2:52pm
Sleaker@james_fudge - hopefully that's the case, but I wont hold my breath for it to happen.07/25/2014 - 1:08pm
SleakerUpdate on crytek situation is a bit ambiguous, but I'm glad they finally said something: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-07-25-crytek-addresses-financial-situation07/25/2014 - 1:07pm
E. Zachary KnightMan Atlas, Why do you not want me to have any money? Why? http://www.atlus.com/tears2/07/25/2014 - 12:06pm
Matthew WilsonI agree with that07/25/2014 - 10:45am
james_fudgeI think Twitch will have more of an impact on how YouTube/Google Plus work than the other way around.07/25/2014 - 10:22am
IanCWelp, twitch is going to suck now. Thanks google.07/25/2014 - 6:30am
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
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician