Is EA drunk or just insane ? "EA's 'Project $10'

[Ausdoerrt]

If anything, rather than doing anyone any good (except maybe EA who will get marginally better profits), I'd say this will kill the used game market, and ensure that any recent games get forgotten even faster. Oh well, it's not like they don't fast enough. Guess it makes sense to bet on a "one-shot games for ADHD people" tactic, while encouraging everyone to get new copies.

Oh, and say bye to videogame rentals and borrowing games from friends.

 

[Professor Danger!]

It seems half the people in this thread are assuming EA will demand $10 for every used copy. That's not how it works, they're doing this through release-day DLCs tied to an account.

Well then nevermind. I don't really care about DLCs.

 

[SuAside]

Buying it used? EA still wants you to pay up to the publisher.

Along with piracy, another huge concern of game publishers these days is that they are missing out on the profits to be had from that sale of used games. While shifting more content to straight digital download sales is one option, EA devised a plan called "Project Ten Dollar" that hopes to squeeze 10 bucks from a gamer picking up an EA title second-hand.

These guys are batshit insane.

they're not. they just found an extra way to make a profit.

anyhow, as long as games are released 'finished' or get free patches to unfuck any mistakes made, i'm pretty cool with this. if you want an expansion pack or DLC, pay for it.

this sure beats bloody Ubisoft and their "connect to our servers 24/7 or don't play" approach...

 

[Crni Vuk]

yeah but that doesnt make it more "right" in my eyes. You still dont get access to all features that have been originaly bought with that product.

Maybe its how I see the situation as German. I dont know. But we have a slightly different view about it even when the product is purely digitaly. If I get some "present" or "buy" something. Its mine. I can decide to sell it whom I want. EA telling me now that the "present" cant be sold feels pretty wrong to me.

 

[Sander]

yeah but that doesnt make it more "right" in my eyes. You still dont get access to all features that have been originaly bought with that product.

People need to get over this weird idea that these products work the same way as, say, a car.

Maybe its how I see the situation as German. I dont know. But we have a slightly different view about it even when the product is purely digitaly. If I get some "present" or "buy" something. Its mine. I can decide to sell it whom I want. EA telling me now that the "present" cant be sold feels pretty wrong to me.

That's not what they're saying. They're saying that the second-hand market is huge and they want to make a profit off of it. They do this by providing one-time account-tied unlock codes with each game for additional content.

 

[Crni Vuk]

yeah I know. And I dont like it. I am thinking "German" here. I bought it. I decide what to do with it. Simple. I know I know. That means shit nothing to EA or the world(US)market. But still.

*edit
Also I fight against the thought that "Digital" products are inherently different to "real" products. Why? You pay money for it. And by thinking that its different you make it easier for them to "charge" money from you again. Imagine what might happen one day that they want money from you for playing online games where it was free in the past ... oh wait ...

 

[Sander]

yeah I know. And I dont like it. I am thinking "German" here. I bought it. I decide what to do with it. Simple. I know I know. That means shit nothing to EA or the world(US)market. But still.

*edit
Also I fight against the thought that "Digital" products are inherently different to "real" products. Why? You pay money for it. And by thinking that its different you make it easier for them to "charge" money from you again. Imagine what might happen one day that they want money from you for playing online games where it was free in the past ... oh wait ...

It's not like you can't decide to *not spend that money*.

Also, yes, they are different because it's a fundamentally different medium.

 

[Hamenaglar]

Also, yes, they are different because it's a fundamentally different medium.

Bullshit! And you should know it. They are different because they want them to be different. Medium or no, they should be the same. It's the gaming industry that tries to portray the piracy as stealing when it suits them. Now when game = car analogy doesn't suit them they discard it.

I bought that bloody cd/dvd it's mine and everything that is on it is mine, I have every bloody right to do with it what I want and if I want to sell it second hand I should be able and free to do it. And no 3rd party should interfere in it.

 

[Sander]

Bullshit! And you should know it. They are different because they want them to be different. Medium or no, they should be the same. It's the gaming industry that tries to portray the piracy as stealing when it suits them. Now when game = car analogy doesn't suit them they discard it.

No, this is an entirely different medium because what is being sold is not a full product, it is essentially just information that is easily copied.

Also, this is a business and it's like every time people bring up three little letters DLC, everyone forgets that. EA is under no moral obligation to produce products on your terms, or to stick to a business model just because that's the way it's always been.

I bought that bloody cd/dvd it's mine and everything that is on it is mine, I have every bloody right to do with it what I want and if I want to sell it second hand I should be able and free to do it. And no 3rd party should interfere in it.

You do have 'every bloody right' to do everything you want to do with what is on the CD. Nothing is prohibiting you from reading every bit on that CD.

 

[fedaykin]

Buying it used? EA still wants you to pay up to the publisher.

Good thing this will never happen with books......or will it?

 

[Ausdoerrt]

^ Imagine reading Crime and Punishment, and then at the final scene you see a blank page that reads "please mail this detachable page with a check for $15.99 to receive exclusive last chapter DLC!"

 

[Tagaziel]

Bullshit! And you should know it. They are different because they want them to be different. Medium or no, they should be the same. It's the gaming industry that tries to portray the piracy as stealing when it suits them. Now when game = car analogy doesn't suit them they discard it.

I bought that bloody cd/dvd it's mine and everything that is on it is mine, I have every bloody right to do with it what I want and if I want to sell it second hand I should be able and free to do it. And no 3rd party should interfere in it.

They are different because you agree they are different. Upon installing the game/program you agree to a legally binding End User Licence Agreement. You can't install it without agreeing to it, and if you do, you automatically recognize the publisher's/developer's rights and that what you have is a transferrable licence to use the software, not the actual copy.

You might not agree with this, but those are the facts.

You can do whatever you want within the limits of the licence you agree to follow voluntarily. Nobody forces you to click 'I agree'.

^ Imagine reading Crime and Punishment, and then at the final scene you see a blank page that reads "please mail this detachable page with a check for $15.99 to receive exclusive last chapter DLC!"

The problem with this analogy is that it assumes that EA's DLC system cuts content that's integral to the storyline of the game.

Newsflash: It's not. It's fun, really cool content you miss out on if you pirate or second hand the game.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Nobody forces you to click 'I agree'.

I'd love to see the reaction of the game store clerk upon someone returning the game because he "disagrees with the EULA" You're right though. But I'm hoping they will at least label game packages with a warning for buyers; I mean, they sort of do it for intrusive DRM - every game with Starforce protection has a big SF label on the front.

Newsflash: It's not.

You say so. If there's a bunch of day-1 DLC releases for the game, then there's really no excuse for them to NOT be IN the game itself, since the content is ready and was probably just pulled at the last minute in order to distribute separately.

Also, the problem is not so much with what companies do but with what they can do; after all, they can pick and choose what sort of content to cut. It's one thing when a DLC is a mini-addon of sorts, and another when it's something the game would benefit from in the first place, much less when the game goes out of its way to MAKE you feel like the DLC IS an integral part that got pulled at the last minute (Dragon Age).

So it's not like your fancy "newsflash" carries much validity, bro.

 

[Makenshi]

It seems half the people in this thread are assuming EA will demand $10 for every used copy. That's not how it works, they're doing this through release-day DLCs tied to an account.

Thanks for clarifying. I was like "WTF? How will they do that?"

Actually, I was thinking "hell if I'll let Ford get a cut from my old Escort when I sell it (if they learn EA's misterious method)"

yeah but that doesnt make it more "right" in my eyes. You still dont get access to all features that have been originaly bought with that product.

People need to get over this weird idea that these products work the same way as, say, a car.

Convince me, please. Because everything else I buy on this planet becomes mine until I sell, give or destroy it. Or use it, if it's a one-shot product like condom or food.

The "it's info" argument doesn't convince me. I bought Fallout years ago; I bought information in the form of a copy; that information copy is mine to sell, give or destroy. Why should today's game's be different from 90's games?

These "accept or not no install" are adhesion contracts (not exact if this is the name up there), and this kind of contract is full of abusive cláusulas (yeah, my business/law english needs polishment). Problem is that doing process against big companies because of small money is not... profitable? Dunno if this is the better expression. It's like wasting a lot with lawyer and stuff to discuss an abuse that costs $10 (the DLC in this case).

Industry takes advantage of this, imo. Or maybe not, I don't know. These things are not subject to brazilian law, so maybe some stuff that is abusive/leads to counterprodutive process here, is not there.

Nobody forces you to click 'I agree'.

I'd love to see the reaction of the game store clerk upon someone returning the game because he "disagrees with the EULA"

There's also this. He will likely say it's not his problem and you'll stick with a product you don't want but can't give back.

 

[Sander]

You can do whatever you want within the limits of the licence you agree to follow voluntarily. Nobody forces you to click 'I agree'.

Actually, how binding these EULAs are isn't exactly determined, I don't think it's ever been tested in court but the assumption is that they're a load of crap.

Convince me, please. Because everything else I buy on this planet becomes mine until I sell, give or destroy it. Or use it, if it's a one-shot product like condom or food.

The "it's info" argument doesn't convince me. I bought Fallout years ago; I bought information in the form of a copy; that information copy is mine to sell, give or destroy. Why should today's game's be different from 90's games?

You're still allowed to sell those copies on a second-hand market. They're not trying to prevent that. They're not magically blocking your ability to read the disc or physically move it.

What they are doing is binding additional content to a personal account, meaning that someone who buys a used copy will have no access to that additional content, unless they agree to pay for it.

And as Digital Distribution takes over, the product you buy changes greatly. You're generally not buying a game anymore, but the rights to play that game through the distribution system you're using.

You say so. If there's a bunch of day-1 DLC releases for the game, then there's really no excuse for them to NOT be IN the game itself, since the content is ready and was probably just pulled at the last minute in order to distribute separately.

The difference is non-existent in practice. Content gets cut all the time for a variety of reasons, and the idea that somehow you have a right to all the content that a team produced in the development of a game is nonsense. That's not what you pay for when you buy a game, you pay for the game and nothing else.

 

[Arr0nax]

They are different because you agree they are different. Upon installing the game/program you agree to a legally binding End User Licence Agreement. You can't install it without agreeing to it, and if you do, you automatically recognize the publisher's/developer's rights and that what you have is a transferrable licence to use the software, not the actual copy.

You might not agree with this, but those are the facts.

You can do whatever you want within the limits of the licence you agree to follow voluntarily. Nobody forces you to click 'I agree'.

Ah, the joke of End User Licence Agreement. It's an abomination that never should have existed.
The contract should be signed when you buy the software, not when you install it.

If all the pro-copyright big corporations had to make the end user sign a contract in order to restrain him legally from copying, I would be fine. And I'm pretty sure they would make less sales.

I'm waiting for game developpers to do the same thing some artists are actually doing i.e. adopting a more tolerant stance regarding copy and piracy, the most famous of them being Nine inch Nails

 

[Tagaziel]

You say so. If there's a bunch of day-1 DLC releases for the game, then there's really no excuse for them to NOT be IN the game itself, since the content is ready and was probably just pulled at the last minute in order to distribute separately.

So? Owners of legitimate copies just type in the code that came with the game and download it. t's a non-invasive form of DRM, sure, but nobody's making you pay a second time for the game.

Also, the problem is not so much with what companies do but with what they can do; after all, they can pick and choose what sort of content to cut. It's one thing when a DLC is a mini-addon of sorts, and another when it's something the game would benefit from in the first place, much less when the game goes out of its way to MAKE you feel like the DLC IS an integral part that got pulled at the last minute (Dragon Age).

In ME2 it's optional cool stuff. Don't know about DA.

Thanks for clarifying. I was like "WTF? How will they do that?"

Actually, I was thinking "hell if I'll let Ford get a cut from my old Escort when I sell it (if they learn EA's misterious method)"

A licence to use a copy of a software =/= car.

Your analogy is essentially equivalent to comparing a horse to a floor mat.

Convince me, please. Because everything else I buy on this planet becomes mine until I sell, give or destroy it. Or use it, if it's a one-shot product like condom or food.

It's a licence. You do not own the software, merely a licence to use it, with the disk provided as a convenient way to install said software. Sure, you're free to do what you want with the physical media, but the information stored on it is not your property.

The "it's info" argument doesn't convince me. I bought Fallout years ago; I bought information in the form of a copy; that information copy is mine to sell, give or destroy. Why should today's game's be different from 90's games?

You bought a licence, not a copy.

These "accept or not no install" are adhesion contracts (not exact if this is the name up there), and this kind of contract is full of abusive cláusulas (yeah, my business/law english needs polishment). Problem is that doing process against big companies because of small money is not... profitable? Dunno if this is the better expression. It's like wasting a lot with lawyer and stuff to discuss an abuse that costs $10 (the DLC in this case).

I've read it. It's not really abusive, it's simply a rundown of what you can do and what you cannot. And warranties.

There's also this. He will likely say it's not his problem and you'll stick with a product you don't want but can't give back.

Then you grab him by the balls and force him to refund you. At least, Poland has regulations that allow you to.

Actually, how binding these EULAs are isn't exactly determined, I don't think it's ever been tested in court but the assumption is that they're a load of crap.

It's a shame, they really should patch this loophole up.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

The difference is non-existent in practice. Content gets cut all the time for a variety of reasons, and the idea that somehow you have a right to all the content that a team produced in the development of a game is nonsense. That's not what you pay for when you buy a game, you pay for the game and nothing else.

Sure, I can agree with that point, as long as there aren't ads in-game that make you feel like you DIDN'T get the full game If they keep it in gaming mags and on their websites and out of my fucking game, I could as well pretend the DLCs don't exist.

It's a shame, they really should patch this loophole up.

On the one hand, they should, to end this bullshit. On the other hand, imagine having to pay for law school education or lawyer services every time you install a new game

 

[TheWesDude]

Nobody forces you to click 'I agree'.

I'd love to see the reaction of the game store clerk upon someone returning the game because he "disagrees with the EULA" You're right though. But I'm hoping they will at least label game packages with a warning for buyers; I mean, they sort of do it for intrusive DRM - every game with Starforce protection has a big SF label on the front.

Newsflash: It's not.

actually if you live in the US, we have something called the UCC ( universal commercial code ) which provides numerous protections to you.

the UCC is different from other federal laws in that you must CHOOSE to defend yourself under its statutes.

you know that whole defense of companies that they cannot be liable in excess of the amount paid for a product? if you buy a $200 game, and it fries your computer and it costs you $3,000 worth of damages from their product, their liability is only $200. you know why? the UCC affords them that protection.

NOW for the important part. as a consumer in the US, if you do not agree to any agreement present/inherent in using the software, the business you purchased it from OR the manufacturer ( publisher for software ) MUST offer "recourse and remediation".

this means that if you do not agree with the EULAs or anything else, you MUST make good faith attempts to return the software to the retail location, and if they refuse, then the publisher of the software. if BOTH refuse to accept the product, then you can use the software clicking agree to use the software, without being legally bound by those agreements as both the retail location and the publisher are in violation of the UCC.

of course you would have to document their refusals to accept the software back and reimburse you for it.


another thing?

if you download/pirate music, and they issue you a subpoena or anything, you may defend yourself under the UCC as well. the problem is if they make you sign your name, and every time, you must sign your name, and then note what UCC statute you are defending yourself under. once you do that, your liability is limited to the monetary amount they can prove damages of.

the UCC is a wonderful thing you can even use it to limit your liability to speeding tickets to getting the speeding ticket, but not receiving a fine. under the UCC, fining someone for MOST traffic violations is not allowed. now even speeding tickets are allowed, but you must CHOOSE to defend yourself under the UCC. it is not AUTOMATICALLY given to you.

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

^ Imagine reading Crime and Punishment, and then at the final scene you see a blank page that reads "please mail this detachable page with a check for $15.99 to receive exclusive last chapter DLC!"

The problem with this analogy is that it assumes that EA's DLC system cuts content that's integral to the storyline of the game.

Newsflash: It's not. It's fun, really cool content you miss out on if you pirate or second hand the game.

Sounds good, but it's wrong. Retail buyers get the DLC. Digital Download buyers get the DLC. Pirates get the DLC. Second hand buyers are the only ones who miss out.

Adding day-1 DLC doesn't discourage pirates, or cause them to "miss out" because it's going to be cracked and distributed the same day it becomes available for the retail copies. Day-1 DLC is definitely another form of DRM, that's clear enough. But the target is second-hand buyers, not pirates. Any claims otherwise are just PR bullshit.