Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

June 1, 2010 -

While you (and I) were enjoying the Memorial Day weekend, the owner of an independent videogame store in Columbus, Ohio recorded and uploaded a new YouTube video in which he further assails the  Online Pass initiative of Electronic Arts.

EA’s measure, for the uninitiated, would tie online gameplay to codes that come with select new titles, meaning that purchasers of used games, which feature Online Pass, would need to shell out $10.00 for a new code in order to play online.

The Level One store owner previously stated that the introduction of Online Pass would destroy the buy, sell, trade business.

In his latest video, the owner notes that buy, sell, trade businesses have been operating for over 20 years and he states that he has “yet to hear of the detrimental damage they have done to developers.” He noted that Electronic Arts continued to grow over that same time frame, adding in a text note that “EA has bought and closed more Small Devlopers than the Used game market ever did damage to…”

The owner runs through the financials of EA and the salary of CEO John Riccitiello, before offering, “When John Riccitiello makes $8 an hour working at the food court down the hall from me, he can come in and tell me that he is going to punish gamers for wanting to save a few dollars. Until then he’s just another rich guy, an extortionist, motivated by pure selfishness, preying on the rest of us.”
 

Thanks again Bobby!


Comments

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

It's not the developers that are worried about profits. I nmany cases they're jsut glad if you enjoyed the product, and more often than not the publishers over work and under pay them.

The problem is that, indeed, the publishers are rich, and more often than not, for people like them, those profits aren't enough, they for some reason have to keep maing more. That's why the "trickle down" argument never holds water, as those who have a shitloado fm oney are less inclined to spend it and more inclined to want more to hoard.

That's what EA is more or less guilty of here.

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

"It's not the developers that are worried about profits. I nmany cases they're jsut glad if you enjoyed the product, and more often than not the publishers over work and under pay them."

Yeah it's not like they depend on the games making money so they can continue working or anything. *facepalm

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

Well, it's a good thing games have been crap for the last 4 years because I haven't got involved in a game since 2006.

But yea; The digital age is corrupt. But you have to realize this -- What else are these big companies gonna do when crying about piracy is not enough to nazi up everything? Raise the prices, and add charges to anything they can.

----------------------------------------

"Because this town is under the stranglehold of a few tight eyed Tree Huggers who would rather play Hacky Sack than lock up the homeless" -- Birch Barlow

---------------------------------------- "Because this town is under the stranglehold of a few tight eyed Tree Huggers who would rather play Hacky Sack than lock up the homeless" -- Birch Barlow

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

Blablabla extortion blabla big corporation blabla nazi

The customer isn't ever going to have to pay that $10. The pass is free when buying the game new, so he has no point there. And if stores are smart they'll lower the price of used games consequently. His only valid point is that it lowers the resale value of games. He's talking as if EA was stealing money from a starving baby. Oh wait, he actually litterally makes that argument. Jesus Christ.

Maybe if these guys didn't buy recent games for like $20 then turn around and sell them for $10 less than the new copies, this wouldn't be necessary.

I understand why he would be scared, as a store owner, but this is pathetic and manipulative. Reading the comments in that video is depressing, it seems like so many people are buying that BS.

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

Say the stores are smart and they lower the price of these used games by $10 to compensate for the $10 the customer must pay for an Online Pass. That means to keep the same profit margin on a used game sale, they must lower their buying price by $10, as well. As such, a customer buys Madden 2011 new for $60, plays it for a few weeks and brings it back to the store to trade it in. If that store used to give back, say, $20 for the relatively new game (according to your assumption), now they'll only give $10. The original consumer is now at a loss of $10 as compared to the buy/sell/trade system that's been in effect all these years because of the lowered resale value. They may even choose not to bother selling the game back and just let it wither away on a shelf forever, which in their perspective makes the whole experience just a waste of money.

On top of that, the used game buyer pays EA $10 to access online content, if they so choose. The same goes for a person who may purchase that same disc from the 2nd buyer, or several friends who borrow the game from someone else, or (god forbid) anyone playing online with splitscreen. Not to mention a copy of the disc being acquired and passed out by a rental system such as GameFly or Blockbuster: that single disc - which was purchased new from EA to begin with - may change hands a dozen times, and if even half of those people try to go online, EA makes a full $60 in revenue.

For basically nothing.

The entirety of the system simply makes gaming as a hobby more expensive for the entire gaming community. In one sense, EA is just creating a rental system that pays them instead of the used games seller. It's another step towards a monthly subscription service for their games, which is clearly what they want to accomplish.

On the other hand, why are people still buying the same sports games every year? Write a letter to EA asking for a Madden MMO and get it over with.

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

He never once mentioned that the customer buying a NEW game would have to pay that price its the USED games or second hand games in any way that would have to pay the $10 (try watching the video 1st before commenting).

If I buy a game and I decide to gift that game to my friend once I'm done playing it, should my friend really be expected to hand money over to EA? 

If I buy a car and I decide to give that car to my son in a few years should my son be expected to hand Honda a few hundred dollars so he can get his airconditioning to unlock? 

Why is digital media being looked at these days as not something you own? I went out and bought that DVD/Blu-ray so why can't I do with it what I want? Why does the person who buys it off of me not retain the full ownership that I had when I bought it in the 1st place? Thats the problem with this day and age, no one has ownership of anything any more, its all just a "licence".

 

 

 

 

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

In this case you do own the content on the disc, you just don't own the multiplayer servers. You paid to access those when you bought the game new and your friend is paying to access them when you gift it.

You own your car, but you pay the government a fee every year for the right to drive on the roads. (car license)

You own your computer, but you pay your ISP for the right to use their servers to access the internet. You own your game but you pay EA for the right to access their servers for online play. Seems completely legit in regards to other media and mediums to me.

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

So do you have anything that actually refutes the arguments made in the video? How exactly is EA hurting that requires them to charge that $10 for online play? How is this NOT going to hurt used game sellers? Please provide details to support that this video is nothing but BS.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

What makes the used game seller's (retailor in this case) complaint about making less money any more valid then EAs complaint about the same thing. It seems to me your opinion is unfairly biased against the people who actually make the content.

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

There's really not much in there to refute. He just harps on "grr big corporation grr" for 11 minutes.

Yeah I do not know why EA would need more money. I also do not know why EA would need a reason to want to get more money. If you can tell me why, then I'll bother with this awesome argument.

The whole point of the pass is to make used games a less interesting proposition so yes, this will hurt used games sellers. Not the college student, not the young married couple, not the kid working at the food court. If he wanted my sympathy, he should be playing up more of the indy store card and less of the nazi extortion of starving babies one.

[Edit: Actually, come to think of it, and I'm ashamed to not have realized this before, this won't even hurt used games sellers, since all they need to do is buy games for $10 less to compensate for the reduction in price of used games. ie instead of buying for $20 and selling for $50, they can buy for $10 and sell for $40. They make the same profit, and the customer pays the exact same price, except now the publisher gets their share instead of having one sale entirely cannibalized. So, the only legitimate victim here is the guy who plans on selling or handing down their game afterwards.]

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

 So, the only legitimate victim here is the guy who plans on selling or handing down their game afterwards.

You don't see this as a problem!?

Re: Indie Store Owner Continues Anti-Online Pass Fight

That is a valid concern and I really wish that was being discussed instead of the misinformed nerdrage I'm seeing right now.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Did Microsoft pay too much ($2.5 billion) for Minecraft developer Mojang?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Craig R.tldr: I'm a gamer, and imo those who support GamerGate should feel free to take a flying leap off a cliff.09/20/2014 - 1:27pm
Craig R.Not only that, I'm pretty sure that if actual studies were done, you'd still deny them, Sleaker. After all, it's not what you'd want to hear to support your rose-colored view of GamerGate.09/20/2014 - 1:18pm
Craig R.There IS an issue. Nor do we need a study to show that if you deny it then you're part of the problem.09/20/2014 - 1:17pm
Sleakersimply oust people that do harass others.09/20/2014 - 11:34am
Sleaker@Conster - I can say the same thing if you think there's been more than a handful. Until there's an actual study on rates no one can claim to know how widespread the incidence of harassment is. Thus the best we can do is 'there might be an issue' and...09/20/2014 - 11:33am
ConsterSleaker: if you think there's only been "a handful of" incidents, you have your head stuck *somewhere* - I'm assuming it's sand.09/20/2014 - 5:38am
prh99Most of it's agitprop clickbait anyway.09/20/2014 - 5:27am
prh99A good reason to stop reading reguardless of view pointhttp://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli.09/20/2014 - 5:22am
Andrew EisenWell this is unique! A musical critique of the Factual Feminist's "Are Video Games Sexist?" video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K4s7cV4Us409/20/2014 - 2:41am
Andrew EisenSome locked threads. Some let them be. So, no, I'm not seeing a problem here. No corruption. No collusion. No ethical problem with privately discussing ethics.09/20/2014 - 12:48am
Andrew EisenAnd still, in the end, Tito made up his own mind on how to handle his site. All 150 or so members went off to handle their own sites in their own ways. Some talked about it. Some didn't. Some changed disclosure policies. Some didn't.09/20/2014 - 12:40am
Andrew EisenThere were two comments other than Kochera and Tito's. One pointed out the Escapist Code of Conduct, another comment was in support of Tito.09/20/2014 - 12:40am
Andrew EisenKochera privately expressed his disagreement on how Tito decided to do something. No, I don't consider that crossing a line nor do I consider the exchange an example of the group pressuring him.09/20/2014 - 12:36am
Kronotechnical reasons. Anyways, I need to get to sleep as well.09/20/2014 - 12:29am
KronoAnd he wasn't the only one pushing Tito to censor the thread. If Tito had bowed to peer pressure, we likely wouldn't have gotten this http://goo.gl/vKiYtR which grew out of that thread. Said thread also lasted until a new one needed to be made for09/20/2014 - 12:28am
Krono@Andrew So it's an example of Kuchera crossing the line from reporter to advocate. And an example of the group pressuring for censorship.09/20/2014 - 12:21am
E. Zachary KnightAnyway, I am off to bed. I will probably wake up to all of this being knocked off the shout box.09/20/2014 - 12:20am
E. Zachary KnightKrono, that is the type of reading too much into things that bugs me. Ben did no such thing. Greg had the last word in that part of the exchange. The rest was about how to approach the story and Quinn.09/20/2014 - 12:19am
Andrew EisenSo?09/20/2014 - 12:13am
KronoExcept that the forum thread wasn't harassment, and Kuchera continued to push for the thread's removal after Tito made it clear he didn't consider it harassment.09/20/2014 - 12:12am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician