The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
EA's newly released Medal Of Honor is the first game I have played which does not allow online play simply from the playing the game from the disc.Each copy sold comes with a unique code which must be registered with EA in order to unlock all online features of the game (that is all Multiplayer modes as well as the Tier 1 feature) .So if you have bought the game second hand or rented it these features are not available.I believe you can buy a code from EA but this cost would then need to be added to cost of your second hand copy which I imagine would make it virtually the same price as buying a new one.
What do you guys think of this practice ?,is it fair ? or do you think that EA have a damn cheek to seriously devalue the trade in value of a game you may have paid around £40 for and have either completed or didn't really care for ?.In the case of Medal Of Honor it really does restrict what modes of the game you can play,it's basically just the single player campaign (which I believe is extremely short) that is available,everything else is locked.
If this works for EA surely other developers will follow suit ?.Would boycotting these titles perhaps make EA rethink their strategy ?.In the past I have heard games developers likening the effect of the sale of second hand games to that of piracy as in they do not get any revenue from it.If this practice does become the norm should the retail price of games drop in order to compensate for the fact that they are going to be worth less when you come to trade in or resell them ?.
Be interested to know what the peeps on here think of this.
What do you guys think of this practice ?,is it fair ? or do you think that EA have a damn cheek to seriously devalue the trade in value of a game you may have paid around £40 for and have either completed or didn't really care for ?.In the case of Medal Of Honor it really does restrict what modes of the game you can play,it's basically just the single player campaign (which I believe is extremely short) that is available,everything else is locked.
If this works for EA surely other developers will follow suit ?.Would boycotting these titles perhaps make EA rethink their strategy ?.In the past I have heard games developers likening the effect of the sale of second hand games to that of piracy as in they do not get any revenue from it.If this practice does become the norm should the retail price of games drop in order to compensate for the fact that they are going to be worth less when you come to trade in or resell them ?.
Be interested to know what the peeps on here think of this.
Page:
Its very nice for consumers at the moment. The fact that I can go buy a game now, complete it and selling it on ebay for 95% of what I paid is great. Who doesnt like that? Its not sustainable though when the second hand market becomes more important than new sales. On the whole I think I prefer games development being a profitable business than not.
And pretending game developers are swimming in money isnt helpful. You might want to look at when EA last posted a profit. Even so, game development is high risk. Naturally the rewards are great if a game is successful. And if some of those risks werent paying off then we wouldnt get new investment in games.
And pretending game developers are swimming in money isnt helpful. You might want to look at when EA last posted a profit. Even so, game development is high risk. Naturally the rewards are great if a game is successful. And if some of those risks werent paying off then we wouldnt get new investment in games.
Garin wrote:
Not sure how already paying for Xbox Live is a valid point. Publishers dont receive anything from it, in fact it costs them money They should give you a portion of their product for free because you give another company money? It doesnt sound particularly reasonable to me.
For those that subscribe to an online service this will feel like a 2nd charge. Is that fair? Those who bought any second hand EA game last year were able to play for free but those that buy a second hand EA game this year can't, is that fair? You're not going to get a fair for all policy.
Not sure how already paying for Xbox Live is a valid point. Publishers dont receive anything from it, in fact it costs them money They should give you a portion of their product for free because you give another company money? It doesnt sound particularly reasonable to me.
For those that subscribe to an online service this will feel like a 2nd charge. Is that fair? Those who bought any second hand EA game last year were able to play for free but those that buy a second hand EA game this year can't, is that fair? You're not going to get a fair for all policy.
My spin on it is while I am paying a subscription to use an online gaming service why should I put up with EA's recent policy for playing their games online while there are plenty of other games developers producing titles which do not do this ?.One example of an EA title I bought and hated was Burnout Paradise,I played it twice (once online) and then sold it.I only lost about £6 on it so I wasn't that bothered.When it's looking like an EA game with a used online code is most likely to drop around £15-£20 in price very quickly then I am going to be very wary of buying any of their titles in the future.Games developers get plenty of revenue already from people using their online services in the form of overpriced DLC.I have bought map packs for the likes of Gears Of War,Call Of Duty as well as cars and tracks for Forza etc.If I could not access these games online features then I would not have bought them.EA are perfectly entitled to introduce these practices if they wish but hope they don't mind if I choose not to buy their titles at full price in the future.
Not sure how already paying for Xbox Live is a valid point. Publishers dont receive anything from it, in fact it costs them money They should give you a portion of their product for free because you give another company money? It doesnt sound particularly reasonable to me.
I've been frustrated by EAs online policies for a while and this one is no exception. I very much doubt that people actually paying money to play online will stop them pulling the plug on servers.
The online pass is annoying for me because I have to share games with my brother as I can't afford them myself. We both have separate Xboxes so if we buy a game new, only 1 of us can play it online. The other would have to pay.
Unless something has changed since this was first announced, I have to consider carefully any purchase of an EA product. Their customer service is ridiculous as well. I've never been able to get a straight answer out of them.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Need For Speed Hot Pursuit to have an online pass. Looks like a new game just cost a bit extra.
The online pass is annoying for me because I have to share games with my brother as I can't afford them myself. We both have separate Xboxes so if we buy a game new, only 1 of us can play it online. The other would have to pay.
Unless something has changed since this was first announced, I have to consider carefully any purchase of an EA product. Their customer service is ridiculous as well. I've never been able to get a straight answer out of them.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Need For Speed Hot Pursuit to have an online pass. Looks like a new game just cost a bit extra.
In theory I don't have an issue with it. I had to redeem my code for Tiger Woods 11 and I've barely been online with it. I do understand where the publishers are coming from with this but the point about already paying for xbox live is a very valid one. Perhaps they should offset this by having some free content for us to enjoy but they'll never do that.
@ HF : In the case of Medal Of Honor the offline content is extremely limited,it is literally just the single player campaign,there is not even a split screen option on the game.As previously mentioned,I believe the campaign is also very short.
@ Nin : Totally agree mate,they should either drop the price of the games or bin off this idea.If the game was £20 I would say this practice was fair.
@ Garin : What about us Xbox Live subscribers ?,we already pay to play online games,it is really fair for each games developer to then effectively charge us a premium for every game of theirs we choose to play online ?.If you redeem the code if have devalued your copy of the game.
Cheers for the comments guys,really interested to hears peoples views on this one.After learning of this I decided to rent and not buy Medal Of Honor and after playing it have decided to wait for Call Of Duty : Black Ops instead.Another concern of mine is if people do not redeem the code to play the game online or buy it second hand and decide not to buy another code just how many people are going to be playing this in a few months time ?.If you go online with Call Of Duty 4 (which is nearly 3 years old now) there's still loads of people on it and you can get a game no problem at all.Will the same thing happen in the case of Medal Of Honor ?,somehow I doubt it.
@ Nin : Totally agree mate,they should either drop the price of the games or bin off this idea.If the game was £20 I would say this practice was fair.
@ Garin : What about us Xbox Live subscribers ?,we already pay to play online games,it is really fair for each games developer to then effectively charge us a premium for every game of theirs we choose to play online ?.If you redeem the code if have devalued your copy of the game.
Cheers for the comments guys,really interested to hears peoples views on this one.After learning of this I decided to rent and not buy Medal Of Honor and after playing it have decided to wait for Call Of Duty : Black Ops instead.Another concern of mine is if people do not redeem the code to play the game online or buy it second hand and decide not to buy another code just how many people are going to be playing this in a few months time ?.If you go online with Call Of Duty 4 (which is nearly 3 years old now) there's still loads of people on it and you can get a game no problem at all.Will the same thing happen in the case of Medal Of Honor ?,somehow I doubt it.
Well I dont have any problems with it and I dont really blame them either. The fact of the matter is the multiplayer component is a service. I dont really think they've got any obligations to provide that service to anybody other than their customers. Especially when multiplayer habits have changed and people are prone to spend alot longer on the multiplayer now than they used it.
Really this is a battle between publishers and retailers with consumers caught in the middle. The day retailers realised that theres more money in second hand than new was bad news for everybody. Some retailers now basically promote second hand over new if they can. Publishers have to do something and lowering prices doesnt solve anything. They need new purchases to be better than second hand and the other way they'll do that is by offering services/content to the original buyers.
Really this is a battle between publishers and retailers with consumers caught in the middle. The day retailers realised that theres more money in second hand than new was bad news for everybody. Some retailers now basically promote second hand over new if they can. Publishers have to do something and lowering prices doesnt solve anything. They need new purchases to be better than second hand and the other way they'll do that is by offering services/content to the original buyers.
The 2nd hand market should be protected while games companies routinely put out £40 games that can be finished in a weekend.
Out of principle I'll simply not bother playing these games online, save myself even more money on 2nd hand games or wait for the platinum range version to come out. Suck it EA!
Out of principle I'll simply not bother playing these games online, save myself even more money on 2nd hand games or wait for the platinum range version to come out. Suck it EA!
Yeah, this sort of thing started *I believe* with UFC10, so it was THQ who started things, fairly sure it wasn't EA pioneering this idea.
In my opinion it's just another sort of form of DRM, as well as riding on the tails of the cashflow of 2nd hand games which they don't get at present.
Will it make me think twice about getting second hand games? Maybe, in the minority of cases where the online aspect might be played (FIFA11, for example). But for the majority of games, I tend to stay on the offline part anyway...
In my opinion it's just another sort of form of DRM, as well as riding on the tails of the cashflow of 2nd hand games which they don't get at present.
Will it make me think twice about getting second hand games? Maybe, in the minority of cases where the online aspect might be played (FIFA11, for example). But for the majority of games, I tend to stay on the offline part anyway...
Page: