Two weeks without an update? I know I'm slacking guys. My mind's just been elsewhere for a while but I'm getting back to it. The twitter account will become more active again too. But anyway lets get down to business here shall we? Today I'm weighing in on the recent news released by Electronic Arts that starting with Tiger Woods PGA 2011 that they will be instituting a new policy for online access to their sports line up. All full retail purchases will be given a special, single use code to enter on X-Box Live and PSN that will allow them online access for that particular game. So why is this a big deal and why is EA doing this?
Well lets explore what's been happening for years now. Electronics Boutique and Gamestop had long been offering gamers a way to turn their older games into opportunities to buy new games. You walk into any of their stores and sell back your old games or consoles for credit towards new purchases. Those new purchases could be fresh, new titles, or if you're a financially conscious gamer, you could spend a little less money by buying a used game. I don't want to say it revolutionized the gaming industry because the only people making money off the second-hand transactions were EB/Gamestop. Developers and publishers only see profit from the initial transaction. When they game is sold back to EB Games or Gamestop, the money is pocketed by Gamestop and the same goes for when that game is placed back on the shelves as a used property.
Year after year Gamestop has posted incredibly profitable earnings thanks in part to the fact that it offers these services to gamers. However developers who spend their time and effort on these games don't see the same return. I myself use Gamestop's services often. I mean from a consumer perspective, it's kind of a lot to ask us to spend $60 bucks a pop on new games. I'm not saying developers and publishers don't deserve to get money back on their investments. But as someone who's an avid gamer with low income, I can't justify paying full retail price for all the games I purchase. The key thing is I'm a gamer, not a collector. I usually don't have more than 5 games at a time per system. However if a game has a serious amount of longevity to it, it remains on my shelf for a while. But if a game is a one off..with no replay value at all; you bet I will eventually unload it to collect on the credit given and use that to get myself something new.
So after years of this going on, EA is stepping up to the plate to try and curb this practice. Technically there's no legal action they can take so the only thing they can do is institute a workaround that will hopefully get consumers to stop buying their games used. Insert a little code slip into the case to activate the online features of the game and you're clear to go. That's all well and good, but who is this hurting really? I'd say it hurts the consumer more than Gamestop and other used game shops. While used games do contribute heavily to Gamestop's revenue streams, it's not its only source. Remember, they do sell the new games, peripherals, consoles, magazines, guides, and general gaming merchandise. They'll make their money even if some of their used games sales decrease. But what about the general consumer?
You're basically telling the cash strapped gamer, that is already paying for online service (if they're using X-Box Live) that they have to be prepared to kick in another $10 if they want to play the game online. It's essentially like selling a crippled product by forcing them to pay money to "unlock" something that's already included in the game. It's not like purchasing an add-on to the game at all. No, instead you're paying for access to a feature that has been standard in games for years now. While naturally I assume if you pick up the game for full retail this isn't a problem, the code is there already. However say someone got bored with it, sold it back to Gamestop and you figure one day "Hey, the price is a little cheaper. Maybe I'll check it out now." Well you're pretty much screwed since the code is already used and the only way to get online with it now is to fork over some more money to EA. Okay, they're not asking for a ton of money here, but it's still asking entirely too much from the consumer who's trying to save themselves some money.
I don't know, maybe I'm off the mark here. Let me know what you guys think.
1 comment:
I'm going to make this short considering I haven't introduced myself (Soon, I promise) and this is taking away time from my workout and Red Dead Redemption awesome-game-blastothon I have planned for the night.
It is going to hurt the gamers. Would I have picked up a new copy of Assassins Creed and Condemned if they were full retail price regardless of the rave reviews each have collected? There's a good chance in the future after the prices have dropped to that of a burrito, but definitely not at the time.
Here's a good example...we've chatted for months about buying Borderlands and rocking that world something fierce...would you have bought a new copy for 39.99-49.99 (I think this is the current retail price for the game, correction anyone?) or would you pick up the used copy for $30? Obviously unless you need to be the sole owner of that particular game, you and I know we don't have a problem with that, then we would obviously grab the used copy for a lower price. Now if they had their little 'code' system in place we would be forced to buy the new copy because it is meant to be played with a constant group of buddies over XBL or PSN.
You are not off your rocker...well you are but this is a very legitimate gripe. We the consumers are already paying a lot of money for the hardware, then we pony up more for the accessories and software. I also understand that the parent company is a business first and foremost with customer satisfaction coming in somewhere after making moolah. But what if the customer isn't satisfied?
Posse up tonight?
Post a Comment