The $10 Issue: How EA Screws Itself

"Do you want us to hate you?!"

I originally wrote a blog post hating on EA and their $10 policy plan.  If you don't know, EA (and now Ubisoft and THQ) has started a plan where a code will be given to NEW versions of their popular games (for EA they are limiting it to their sports franchises) that will allow for online multiplayer gaming.  A feature that for years has been included in their games now costs $10 if you buy the game used.  

The blog I had written:

It seems like stating the obvious in a blog probably isn't the best thing to do.  But I suppose there are people that might not know, DRM doesn't work.  It doesn't stop piracy.  All it does is limit the actual consumer, the person BUYING your product. I'm worked up because Electronic Arts (one of the largest game publishers) seems to think that they can succeed where so many people have failed.  John Riccitiello seems to think that their new plan will benefit the gamer.  Let's go over their stupid idea. EA plans to include a voucher with online enabled EA games that will activate said component for that gamer.  If you didn't buy the game new, say used from Gamestop, you'll have to shell out an extra $10 for the privilege to play online.   From Mr. Riccitiello, "Invariably, the consumer is getting a boatload more content to experience than they otherwise would."  Let's go ahead and start with the obvious, because some loser pays you guys more money to play online we all get to reap the rewards because more cash is coming in.  With Tiger Woods 10, the user (me and you) could play online without having the shell out more money to EA.  But with Tiger Woods 11, not anybody not buying the game new will have to pay the extra $10 to play online.  Wait, thats not MORE content.  I think thats less.  Let's do some simple math here: game + online = full product game - online != full product Hmmm, something is missing here.  But luckily Mr. Riccitiello has another fine point, "We used to literally pull our teams off of a game within maybe four to six weeks pre-ship and they'd go work on something else because the game was done, it was going into manufacturing.  Their jobs were done."  So what?  Wait, when somebody finishes a product they go and work on ANOTHER project?  But now, "Our teams are being held in place up through and beyond ship to continue to create content to entertain the consumer with new content associated with the IP they like best."  Doesn't that just sound like downloadable content (or DLC)?  Thank god we can now have DLC for our EA game!  Wait, Madden NFL 10 had 11 pieces of downloadable content (some of those were bundles of other content, those also counted here) that came out starting with the ship game of Madden up until 1 month and a half after release.  EA released DLC for NBA Live 10 two months after ship date.  So maybe we are talking about DLC that happens well after the product has shipped?  Because Madden, NBA Live, Tiger Woods, FIFA and others are YEARLY franchises.  You are telling me that the Madden team will sacrifice a few team members to work on the OLD game?  That means LESS people working on the NEW game.  That sounds like it's improving MY experience.  Unless there are people at EA simply twiddling their freaking thumbs all day long I'm pretty sure they can find something to work on.   Extending the game time seems like it couldn't be a bad idea.  More planets to explore in Mass Effect 2, sure.  But if that EVER comes at the cost of a delay of Mass Effect 3 then it wasn't worth it. The problem here is that EA is pissing on me and trying to convince me that it has regenerative properties.  What they are doing is strictly a business decision.  They feel that they are losing money for every used game sale (Buuuuulllllssshhhhiiiittt) and need to make up for it.  That's fine.  You want to screw the consumer, do it, but don't try to sugar coat it.  Treating me like an idiot isn't going to make me simpathize with you.



The Aftermath:

After about a week of thinking about this, I've come to a new conclusion.  While the practice that EA is putting into effect complicate things for their end user, it does have one extremely positive outcome.  The assumption that EA has been using is that this screws over GameStop because now their used market because less valuable.  If GameStop sells a NEW used game for $55 (their current policy) instead of $60 then it is actually MORE expensive for the user because THEY will have to pay the $10 extra to play online.  Now this assumes two things; 1. That the end user WANTS to play online and 2. That GameStop continues their current price structure.  Both of those points are extremely flawed.  

Let's tackle this in reverse order.

Point 2: GameStop Continues Their Current Price Structure

There is NO way they can sell a USED anything for the SAME or MORE expensive price as the new version.  There just isn't a way GameStop can do that.  They make a lot of money every year by giving people choice.  A choice that the publishers are desperately trying to take away.  So what does GameStop do?  They HAVE to lower the price.  They could lower them to $50 which would even it up with a new game IF you include the online code.  But if they want to keep their pricing structure of under cutting the new games then they'll lower the used game price to $45.  They have to.  GameStop typically buys new games for $20-30 a game, still a hefty profit.  They also could lower the amount you get for your trade in.  EA has to be smoking something to think that GameStop will try to sell USED games for $55 plus a $10 online code.  The price HAS to come down.

Point 1: The End User Wants to Play Online

Let's say i'm Johnny Appleseed, walking into my local GameStop to buy the new Madden game.  I love Madden, but I don't have broadband internet.  Or I don't like playing with strangers online.  If I can go into a GameStop and instead of paying $60 for a new game, or even $55 for a used Madden, I might be able to pick up that wonderful game for $45 missing a component I didn't even want?  Perfect!  Not only that, but this also gives me a choice.  Instead of paying $60 for a game with a component that I might not even want, I get to pay for only the part I KNOW I'm going to use.  If I want the online portion down the line I can ALWAYS get it later.  

The bottom line to me is that EA is screwing themselves by lowering the worth of their product.  They are actually giving GameStop the ability to give MORE choices to the user.

Comments

[zoro1]

duray-it's gonna be OK,just have a lil faith or take a leap of faith.SOURCE CODE This is a great movie.If you like Please click here for recipe detail--Tissot Classic watches uk sale