IF, and only if, you buy the game with the intention of reselling it. As a PC gamer, I can't and don't, so I personally never consider the resale price when buying a new game.
I suppose you could have separate accounts for each game? Either way, it looks like EA don't want to you to transfer your account: doing so violates the terms of service.
It seems I was wrong about that. I Imagine a console gamer saying: "What do I do with this EA account filled with DLC for games I no longer own?" and EA responding "not our problem, we already have your money". Not good. >:C
So you complain about day-one DLC available only to new purchases and then say that you only buy games "new" from the bargain bin? I think there's something there that doesn't quite add up.
You see to be implying that video game publishers sell "used" games (for near to full price). They don't.
Since it has a lower resale value, the free market dictates that the original product should have a lower price.
Surely taking this to its logical conclusion would result in all products' initial sale price tending towards production cost? I'm all for it, if it does.
However, the problem is that the video game market pretty much requires prices to be static as lowering a game's sale price lowers its perceived quality to the consumer, regardless of its actual quality, and therefore lowers sales
All I'm seeing here is a reduction in the (relative) value of the used copies. Which is exactly what the game publishers want. If GameStop and their ilk want to continue selling these used games for "new cost - 1%", they can, but they shouldn't be surprised when people stop buying them.
I see nothing here that reduces the value of the new product. Unless you buy the new product with the intention of reselling it. Which is not what the publishers want you to do, of course
Implying that you consider a game to be a product and not a service, as the publishers would like you to think. If you don't like not being able to resell it, don't buy services, buy products.
If they did not CLEARLY inform potential customers BEFORE purchase then that IMO is deceptive marketing.
It's usually pretty clearly stated on the game box, IIRC
Your other points are certainly correct, though. My only point is that it's perhaps made out to be worse of a problem than it is, especially if you can't resell you game, as is the case (most of the time) for PC gamers
The only difference, then, is your perspective. If you choose to see it as being "taken away from" used buyers, do so. As a PC gamer, I can't buy used games anyway, so I choose to see it the other way.
Unless you somehow have separate accounts for each game you buy. That will be problematic. I don't claim it's an ideal or easy solution and it's possibly in contravention of the EULA (but since when have EULAs ever been considered legitimate contracts), but it's a solution.
Typically, when you give someone money in exchange for something, you've bought it. It's yours. You own it. You can sell it.
If you're talking about products, then yes, that is the case. If you buy a service OTOH, you don't get those rights to resale, and you don't own it.
Arguably, game publishers have been pushing to make video games "services" for the better part of the last two decades, but it's only with digital distribution that they're actually gotten close to achieving it. Whether or not this is a good thing is up to you, as the consumer.
It's ridiculous, consumers are meant to think they're buying something, and most do. Pretending they're not actually buying something becuase it's DLC? Absurd.
If I'm not actually buying it, I shouldn't be paying $60 as if I AM
If a game is so terrible that people are selling it back in the first week, then that is a shitty game and whoever made it deserves fewer sales.
Then don't buy it. As a consumer, that is your right, and no one is forcing you to play these games
Except that Origin doesn't "scan the hard disk". By accepting the EULA, you accept that it can, (if EA wants it to) however.
Better yet, if they'd made it compatible with Steam so that I don't have to install multiple pieces of software to access my game library, I might even have used it.
Implying that games on Steam don't already require this. Examples: basically any GFWL game (eg. Batman: Arkham Asylum and Arkham City, Fable III), Assassin's Creed II and Brotherhood, Fallout 3. And those are just the ones in my library. There are countless more.
With Origin, you come pretty damn close to that, actually. The only thing you don't have is the ability to resell your license (I'll admit that this is a fairly big thing, though).
You can even register retail copies of games and be able to download them any time anywhere. Blizzard do something similar, too.
You could also create unique EA Origin accounts for each game you intend to resell and sell the account with the game, thereby passing on ownership of the DLC.
Huh? They're decreasing the value of the game by including something for free with new purchases? How is this any different from preorder DLC? They may be devaluing used games, but they're not the ones selling the used product. If you want to sell the DLC with the game, you're free to do so by selling the EA account with the DLC as well.
Except that the game is not "crippled", it just doesn't include the DLC. If you want to resell the DLC with the game, give the EA account details to the purchaser.
You can still do this, though. If you intend to resell the game, you create an EA account specifically for the game, and then when you sell the game to someone else, you provide them with the login details as part of the package. Then they get all the DLC you purchased or recieved with the game.
This analogy is flawed. If you buy the game second-hand, you can still get the content, you just have to pay for it, where the person who bought the game new didn't have to.
Your analogy would be more like:
You can buy the car form us and get free air conditioning. If someone else buys the car from you, they have to pay us for that air conditioning unit you got for free.
From what Curt Shilling has said, the content is not on the game disc and was intended to be released as (day-one) DLC, but instead, those who buy the game get it for free. I really don't see the problem, myself.
First they would need to know how it is incorporated into the encryption/decryption routine. You are under no obligation to tell them, nor how to obtain that information. Second, they would have to know that the drive's serial number is required to match, nor that entering the wrong password would "destroy" the data. You could just say "well, it worked on my computer, I don't know why it won't decrypt".
Slashdot Mirror
IF, and only if, you buy the game with the intention of reselling it. As a PC gamer, I can't and don't, so I personally never consider the resale price when buying a new game.
I suppose you could have separate accounts for each game? Either way, it looks like EA don't want to you to transfer your account: doing so violates the terms of service.
It seems I was wrong about that. I Imagine a console gamer saying: "What do I do with this EA account filled with DLC for games I no longer own?" and EA responding "not our problem, we already have your money". Not good. >:C
So you complain about day-one DLC available only to new purchases and then say that you only buy games "new" from the bargain bin? I think there's something there that doesn't quite add up.
You see to be implying that video game publishers sell "used" games (for near to full price). They don't.
Since it has a lower resale value, the free market dictates that the original product should have a lower price.
Surely taking this to its logical conclusion would result in all products' initial sale price tending towards production cost? I'm all for it, if it does.
However, the problem is that the video game market pretty much requires prices to be static as lowering a game's sale price lowers its perceived quality to the consumer, regardless of its actual quality, and therefore lowers sales
All I'm seeing here is a reduction in the (relative) value of the used copies. Which is exactly what the game publishers want. If GameStop and their ilk want to continue selling these used games for "new cost - 1%", they can, but they shouldn't be surprised when people stop buying them.
I see nothing here that reduces the value of the new product. Unless you buy the new product with the intention of reselling it. Which is not what the publishers want you to do, of course
Implying that you consider a game to be a product and not a service, as the publishers would like you to think. If you don't like not being able to resell it, don't buy services, buy products.
If they did not CLEARLY inform potential customers BEFORE purchase then that IMO is deceptive marketing.
It's usually pretty clearly stated on the game box, IIRC
Your other points are certainly correct, though. My only point is that it's perhaps made out to be worse of a problem than it is, especially if you can't resell you game, as is the case (most of the time) for PC gamers
The only difference, then, is your perspective. If you choose to see it as being "taken away from" used buyers, do so. As a PC gamer, I can't buy used games anyway, so I choose to see it the other way.
Unless you somehow have separate accounts for each game you buy. That will be problematic. I don't claim it's an ideal or easy solution and it's possibly in contravention of the EULA (but since when have EULAs ever been considered legitimate contracts), but it's a solution.
Typically, when you give someone money in exchange for something, you've bought it. It's yours. You own it. You can sell it.
If you're talking about products, then yes, that is the case. If you buy a service OTOH, you don't get those rights to resale, and you don't own it.
Arguably, game publishers have been pushing to make video games "services" for the better part of the last two decades, but it's only with digital distribution that they're actually gotten close to achieving it. Whether or not this is a good thing is up to you, as the consumer.
It's ridiculous, consumers are meant to think they're buying something, and most do. Pretending they're not actually buying something becuase it's DLC? Absurd.
If I'm not actually buying it, I shouldn't be paying $60 as if I AM
If a game is so terrible that people are selling it back in the first week, then that is a shitty game and whoever made it deserves fewer sales.
Then don't buy it. As a consumer, that is your right, and no one is forcing you to play these games
Except that Origin doesn't "scan the hard disk". By accepting the EULA, you accept that it can, (if EA wants it to) however.
Better yet, if they'd made it compatible with Steam so that I don't have to install multiple pieces of software to access my game library, I might even have used it.
Implying that games on Steam don't already require this. Examples: basically any GFWL game (eg. Batman: Arkham Asylum and Arkham City, Fable III), Assassin's Creed II and Brotherhood, Fallout 3. And those are just the ones in my library. There are countless more.
Did you even read what you replied to?
With Origin, you come pretty damn close to that, actually. The only thing you don't have is the ability to resell your license (I'll admit that this is a fairly big thing, though).
You can even register retail copies of games and be able to download them any time anywhere. Blizzard do something similar, too.
You could also create unique EA Origin accounts for each game you intend to resell and sell the account with the game, thereby passing on ownership of the DLC.
This is a legitimate concern, but it applies to all online DRM and DLC, not just day-one DLC or "online passes"
I'm pretty sure there's nothing stopping you from selling the EA account with the DLC along with the game.
If I am going to have to go online (to download half the game)
This is exactly the same as buying the game new in 6 months when 12 DLC packs have been released, no? Or are you complaining about DLC in general?
Nothing's stopping you from selling the EA account with the DLC with the game, is it?
Huh? They're decreasing the value of the game by including something for free with new purchases? How is this any different from preorder DLC? They may be devaluing used games, but they're not the ones selling the used product. If you want to sell the DLC with the game, you're free to do so by selling the EA account with the DLC as well.
Except that the game is not "crippled", it just doesn't include the DLC. If you want to resell the DLC with the game, give the EA account details to the purchaser.
You can still do this, though. If you intend to resell the game, you create an EA account specifically for the game, and then when you sell the game to someone else, you provide them with the login details as part of the package. Then they get all the DLC you purchased or recieved with the game.
This analogy is flawed. If you buy the game second-hand, you can still get the content, you just have to pay for it, where the person who bought the game new didn't have to.
Your analogy would be more like:
You can buy the car form us and get free air conditioning. If someone else buys the car from you, they have to pay us for that air conditioning unit you got for free.
From what Curt Shilling has said, the content is not on the game disc and was intended to be released as (day-one) DLC, but instead, those who buy the game get it for free. I really don't see the problem, myself.
First they would need to know how it is incorporated into the encryption/decryption routine. You are under no obligation to tell them, nor how to obtain that information. Second, they would have to know that the drive's serial number is required to match, nor that entering the wrong password would "destroy" the data. You could just say "well, it worked on my computer, I don't know why it won't decrypt".