[QUOTE="PC360Wii"][QUOTE="lowe0"] Riiight. So far in this thread, you've openly mocked your brother for the audacity to enjoy gaming on a platform you don't like. Look at the constant master race/peasant meme. People in this thread saying PC gamers push it in their faces have it wrong - it's not about conversion, but condescension. They're not trying to bring you over, just perpetuating the ridiculous notion that anyone is superior because of their choice of gaming platform. The attitudes of the PC gaming community make it utterly unenjoyable to game with - not just to console gamers, but the entire "leeter-than-thou" alpha nerd thing got old about a decade ago.lowe0

PC gaming online was much more pleasant before Counter-Strike. That's really when it went downhill.

Other than the and already stated, perhaps BF:1942 deserves mention.

___________________________________________________________________

Uh, are "Revolutional" or "Revolutionalary" even words?

[QUOTE="room420"]

Exactly, there is an expected on-line lifetime for a game. There is a budget based off of that expected lifetime. Assuming you are a normal gamer who plays for the average expected life time, you have essentially expended the budgeted funds for your purchased copy. When you trade that copy in and another person buys it used, assuming they are a normal gamer, the on-line lifetime of that copy has now been extended to possibly double or more. Publishers and Devs do not plan to support games for the remainder of human civilization.

despite how long the company expects you to play a game, you pay for the access until the server is disconnected. if their business model is to rely on you not using it as much, then its their mistake

Who determines when the server is to be disconnected? The Publisher. How do they determine that? With studies and statistics. Why do they need to do this? Budgets. Publishers have resources that have to be budgeted in order to maintain their operation. I have never seen a piece of software that states the developer or publisher will support it indefinitely. There is an expected lifetime for everything.

also, 360 gamers already cover ALL ONLINE SERVICES with the XBL fees... people really need to stop ignoring this fact

Nobody is ignoring it. I mentioned it in my first post, and in other threads on this topic. However, I prefer to highlight the similarities between what Microsoft has been doing this entire gen and what the publishers are trying to do now. I find it ironic that you are willing to pay Microsoft for access to the on-line portion of your game but not the people who made the game.

What about the rental market? Not sure. I believe currently Pubs have special contracts with rental companies to cover the repeated use of software over multiple consumers. How they are going to adjust to this idea is anybodies guess. There is the possibility of multi-use key's, someone with more knowledge of the rental relationship could probably provide a more specific answer.

Can't share games with other gamers in your household or your buddy down the block? What? They didn't pay for the game. Piracy is ok if its done on a small scale, with people you know, in a close geographical area, and only if you promise to not play at the same time. After all when you bought the game originally you paid for the on-line portion for all eternity for you and all your poor friends to enjoy.

are you seriously comparing Piracy to letting your friend borrow or have a game :|that is one of the most ludicrous things i have ever heard.

No, Not seriously. However, this is System Wars and every post needs a bit of that far out flavor or this place gets boring and redundant. So, in the spirit of System Wars, and Devils advocacy, explain to me the difference.

also, how can you play at the same time when there is only 1 copy?do you honestly have any idea about what youre talking about?

You can't. Thats the point.

No other industry does this! They would if they could. and some are trying as we speak. Cars, look up "Certified Pre-Owned";

good idea. much like the 'certified pre owned', maybe publishers should have a program where you send in your used game and they give you credit for one of their new games... but apparently that doesnt make sense to them

I agree. Unfortunately it does not seem to make financial sense to them. The spin up cost are probably pretty high for that, where as their current solution requires minimal cost to implement.

Music, single song purchases.You can't resell a digital track. The funny thing is none of these other industries have after sale expenses like the video game industry. Just something to think about.

ok, you got me there... i mean, its not like i and many others pay XBL fees for online servicing or anything related to that, right?

That's right, sucks to be you. You have to pay Microsoft for the on-line portion of you new game, the majority of gamers don't. You have to pay Microsoft and the publisher for the on-line portion of your used game, the majority of gamers don't. You seem to think it's ok for Microsoft to do it but not the publishers, do you honestly have any idea what you are talking about?

ogvampire

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

[QUOTE="room420"]

It' funny to see that some of the most vocal opponents to this have XBOX Live Gamertags in their sigs. There seems, at the root, to be little difference between the two, save one charges you for the on-line portion of new games.

When a game is released it has an expected on-line "life" based on a single user. Once that game is resold to someone, the "Life" cycle is restarted, effectively extending the required support time from the Dev/Pub. I can see how the pub/dev can view this, from a business standpoint, as costing them money.

In closing, just to play devils advocate, I can see strong parallels between sharing a game across multiple gamer tags and piracy. Aside from volume, both practices allow a non-paying individual to access the game content and play for "Free". You could even go so far as to call those that share games and content with family and friends mini-pirates, after all you are doing the exact same thing just on a smaller scale.

hellhund

unlimited access to that games content was already paid for when it was bought new....selling it to someone does not use anymore 'resources' or take any further 'servicing'... especially in the case of xbox games, when the 2nd buyer already pays XBL fees

its like this:

1 person buying a game and playing online until the service disconnects

is the same as

1 person buying a game and playing it for a year, then selling it to someone else and having them play it until the service disconnects...

in the end, the 'servicing' is still for 1 person, which was paid for when it was bought NEW. there isnt any extra work or servicing done and no extra resources being used.... do not fall for their BS

Exactly, there is an expected on-line lifetime for a game. There is a budget based off of that expected lifetime. Assuming you are a normal gamer who plays for the average expected life time, you have essentially expended the budgeted funds for your purchased copy. When you trade that copy in and another person buys it used, assuming they are a normal gamer, the on-line lifetime of that copy has now been extended to possibly double or more. Publishers and Devs do not plan to support games for the remainder of human civilization.

What about the rental market? Not sure. I believe currently Pubs have special contracts with rental companies to cover the repeated use of software over multiple consumers. How they are going to adjust to this idea is anybodies guess. There is the possibility of multi-use key's, someone with more knowledge of the rental relationship could probably provide a more specific answer.

Can't share games with other gamers in your household or your buddy down the block? What? They didn't pay for the game. Piracy is ok if its done on a small scale, with people you know, in a close geographical area, and only if you promise to not play at the same time. After all when you bought the game originally you paid for the on-line portion for all eternity for you and all your poor friends to enjoy.

No other industry does this! They would if they could. and some are trying as we speak. Cars, look up "Certified Pre-Owned"; Music, single song purchases. You can't resell a digital track. The funny thing is none of these other industries have after sale expenses like the video game industry. Just something to think about.

It' funny to see that some of the most vocal opponents to this have XBOX Live Gamertags in their sigs. There seems, at the root, to be little difference between the two, save one charges you for the on-line portion of new games.

When a game is released it has an expected on-line "life" based on a single user. Once that game is resold to someone, the "Life" cycle is restarted, effectively extending the required support time from the Dev/Pub. I can see how the pub/dev can view this, from a business standpoint, as costing them money.

In closing, just to play devils advocate, I can see strong parallels between sharing a game across multiple gamer tags and piracy. Aside from volume, both practices allow a non-paying individual to access the game content and play for "Free". You could even go so far as to call those that share games and content with family and friends mini-pirates, after all you are doing the exact same thing just on a smaller scale.

[QUOTE="room420"]

So EA sold 6 mil copies received revenue for the maintainance of 6 mil accounts, however there are 10 mil registered, for example, accounts and EA has to extend their services to 4 mil additional users over the now extended life of the game. How do you determine when a company has made enough money? Have you made enough money? I know I haven't.

ogvampire

more accounts doesnt mean they will all use them at the same time...

also, a reason why there are more accounts than sales is for households with multiple gamertags and things like letting friends borrow the game

EA still has to maintain all those accounts because they have no way to determine if an account is a new customer or a used customer.

Madden NFL '10, alone, sold over 6 million units across all platforms in the last year. EA is the last company that needs more friggin money.

Greyfeld

So EA sold 6 mil copies received revenue for the maintainance of 6 mil accounts, however there are 10 mil registered, for example, accounts and EA has to extend their services to 4 mil additional users over the now extended life of the game. How do you determine when a company has made enough money? Have you made enough money? I know I haven't.

[QUOTE="room420"]

They do for Wii, PS3, and PC though. EA also maintains there own account servers and customer support for all systems. Even if Live customers who buy used theoretically cost them less they still cost them.

roxlimn

What you find necessary is irrelevant. They provide the services, they incur the costs, they are well within their rights to recoup those costs. The same argument could be used for the Live fee. The answer given to those that find the accessory services Live offers unnecessary are summarily told "if you don't like it don't buy it." The same applies here.

I apologize for not going into more detail however it is time for me to get off work so see you folks Monday.

EA didn't actually have to provide this service that they're forcibly charging for. They fought Microsoft for it. Publishers generally just let Live handle online servers which provides matchmaking and lobby services at no additional cost to the publisher.roxlimn

They do for Wii, PS3, and PC though. EA also maintains there own account servers and customer support for all systems. Even if Live customers who buy used theoretically cost them less they still cost them.

[QUOTE="room420"]

What is the difference between what EA is doing and what MS does with Live? I don't see how you can defend one and bash the other. EA isn't trying to kill the used game market, they are trying to get their cut of it.

Used games do tax publishers resources. If the expected on-line life span for a given game is say, for simplicities sake, one month the publisher acquires resources to cover that expected lifespan. The original purchaser plays the game for the average lifespan then trades it in and the game is sold second hand. The second buyer then plays the game for the average lifespan which in turn causes the publisher to maintain the on-line resources for twice the the expected lifespan or greater depending on how many times the game is resold, without seeing additional revenue to support the the additional cost.

Vehicle manufacturers have also implemented measures to gain revenue from used sales. Franchise dealerships create incentives such as "Certified Pre-owned" vehicles, and "Loyalty Discounts". The music Industry has embraced digital distribution and single song sales, greatly reducing the record store resale market. The real estate............. wait what ......... sorry, real estate is not just a different ball game, its a completely different sport. The movie industry would be more than happy to be able to get a cut of the resale market if there was a viable way to do so.

I do not believe this will effect the rental market since the publisher and the rental entity have a contract designed specifically for rental purposes.

Anyway, if you buy used you are the resellers customer not EA's. Complain to them if you don't have on-line, maybe they will lower the price of the used game to reflect the cost of Live and the use of the publishers servers. (Disclaimer: Last paragraph used to add the unique system wars slant to the post, please don't focus on it.)

rr2Real

They are still an expense. Please define dirt cheap then apply that number to the number of games resold then multiply the result by the number of copies resold more than once. Besides if its so cheap to run on-line services how can anyone justify the cost of Live?

At least we agree that there are additional cost applied to the publisher without the additional revenue generated by the copies resale so there is infact a reason beyond the greed of an evil corporation for publishers to restrict the on-line access of their releases.

Care to address any of the other points in my post or are you done?

What is the difference between what EA is doing and what MS does with Live? I don't see how you can defend one and bash the other. EA isn't trying to kill the used game market, they are trying to get their cut of it.

Used games do tax publishers resources. If the expected on-line life span for a given game is say, for simplicities sake, one month the publisher acquires resources to cover that expected lifespan. The original purchaser plays the game for the average lifespan then trades it in and the game is sold second hand. The second buyer then plays the game for the average lifespan which in turn causes the publisher to maintain the on-line resources for twice the the expected lifespan or greater depending on how many times the game is resold, without seeing additional revenue to support the the additional cost.

Vehicle manufacturers have also implemented measures to gain revenue from used sales. Franchise dealerships create incentives such as "Certified Pre-owned" vehicles, and "Loyalty Discounts". The music Industry has embraced digital distribution and single song sales, greatly reducing the record store resale market. The real estate............. wait what ......... sorry, real estate is not just a different ball game, its a completely different sport. The movie industry would be more than happy to be able to get a cut of the resale market if there was a viable way to do so.

I do not believe this will effect the rental market since the publisher and the rental entity have a contract designed specifically for rental purposes.

Anyway, if you buy used you are the resellers customer not EA's. Complain to them if you don't have on-line, maybe they will lower the price of the used game to reflect the cost of Live and the use of the publishers servers. (Disclaimer: Last paragraph used to add the unique system wars slant to the post, please don't focus on it.)