So EA has decided to start requiring a code to play their games online starting with all of the 2011 EA Sports titles. A new game comes with a single use code that allows the user to play online unrestricted. If you buy the game used you won’t be able to jump online without paying EA $10 for a new code for yourself.
What do you think of this?
I think it’s a fair way for EA to handle their business. When you have Gamestop selling a used copy of a brand new game for $5 less than the brand new one right next to it it really undermines the publisher and cuts into their profits. When these companies are spending $10’s of millions of dollars developing these games there is alot to lose. I’m actually surprised that Gamestop hasn’t been sued or violated some sort of law (im not a lawyer or anything but I’m surprised in general).
I don’t see how selling a used copy of Madden for profit would be any different from me downloading an mp3 off iTunes, listening to it and selling it off to someone when I’m tired of it. I don’t believe reselling of mp3’s is legal so why would reselling video games be?
By that argument why would the reselling of books be legal? Or clothes? Chairs?
I think it’s crap and I hate EA for doing it, personally. There’s nothing wrong with selling used games, though Gamestop has a crappy business model and I refused to buy things from them when I lived in America on that basis. Now I can often find used games for around half the price of their new counterparts, unlike at GS which, as you said, would sell for just under the new game price. It’s a viable market and it bothers me that EA feels such a huge need to combat it. Ubisoft is taking measure as well, offering certain bonus content in their games, and that’s something I can understand. Pay for bonus content, not content that should be included, like freaking multiplayer. This just reminds me of when EA charged for DLC on extra stuff for Tiger Woods when the 360 first came out, the same extra stuff that was included in the ps2 version for free.
I love that the price is set at $10. Were it $5, it would make up the difference between a standard used price vs. the same game’s new price at GameStop. With it set at $10, they’re essentially telling you that you might as well buy new, you’ll save $5 overall. Sneaky. I’m of a mind to hate EA for this, but I think I hate GameStop more, so this makes me chuckle.
I don’t know the specifics. But I recall reading that Nintendo tried some legal shenanigans to stop rentals and resells way back in the nes era and failed. So presumably there’s some legal precedent by now.
Horrible. So every time the game gets re-sold, the publisher gets paid, again?
I don’t see the banana-growers getting a cut from every middleman along the way. If I sold it, I don’t have any more rights to the item. Why should my buyer be punished?
I could possibly get on board with this if it lowered prices on brand new games. Fat hope that’ll happen.
Well, it won’t be the first time that someone on the SDMB concedes that he has no idea what he’s talking about, and yet still expresses surprise that the law doesn’t accord with his fantasies.
Ever heard of the “first sale” doctrine in copyright law?
Basically, it means that once you purchase or otherwise lawfully obtain a copyrighted work, you can then transfer it to another person, either by giving it to them or selling it to them. Without this legal principle, copyright owners might have perpetual control over each individual work, and things like libraries, used book stores, second-hand CD stores, and many art galleries, would not exist.
Now, the “first sale” doctrine is admittedly a little more complicated when it comes to things like computer software, and digital information such as MP3 files. In fact, quite a few software producers have attempted, over the last decade or so, to argue that their copyrighted products do not fall under the same “first sale” doctrine as more traditional materials like books, CDs, etc.
One of the main arguments they have used in cases like this is the claim that they are not really selling software as such, but simply a license to use the software. And they claim that this distinction allows them to retain control over the software even after someone has paid for it, and allows the software companies to prohibit people from selling second-hand software.
The problem is that, with a few exceptions in specific cases, courts have, so far at least, generally booted the software industry’s arguments out of court. There have been a couple of cases where buyers who agreed to specific license agreements have had the courts rule against them, but courts have generally found that, unless the buyer agrees to a specific license agreement before the sale actually takes place, the software will be considered sold, not merely licensed, and will be subject to the “first sale” doctrine. And this, as is probably clear from the argument, applies most clearly to purchasing physical media (i.e., software on discs), where you do not accede to a licensing agreement before handing over your money. It’s a little more of a gray area for downloaded software, where you click the agreement before purchasing.
The most recent ruling on this sort of issue was only about 6 months ago, when a federal court ruled against AutoDesk, the makers of AutoCAD software. The company was suing a guy who bought copies of the software and resold it it on eBay. The EFF summarizes the judge’s ruling:
This case has been appealed by Autodesk, and will soon come before the Ninth Circuit, where the EFF and others organizations have filed amicus briefs supporting the defendant. It will be interesting to see how the court rules.
Note that this all assumes that someone who sells second-hand software does so without violating copyright. That is, in order to legally sell under the “first sale” doctrine, you aren’t allowed to make a copy of the software for yourself before selling, and if it is installed on your own computer, you are required to delete it before selling the software.
The case with MP3 files, which you allude to in your OP, is rather different, because an MP3 purchased on the internet is nothing but a digital file. It does not come with installation discs, and is trivially easy to copy hundreds or thousands of times.
A couple of years ago, an entrepreneur proposed setting up an online store called Bopaboo, where people could sell their unwanted MP3 files. The douchebag behind the venture argued that such a service would be legal under the “first sale” doctrine. Basically, the recording industry went ballistic, and even legal authorities who are generally supportive of maintaining “first sale” doctrine for computer software were very critical of the proposed service, arguing that there would be basically no way to determine whether the MP3s offered for sale had been copied before being uploaded. As one person argued:
Most people who keep an eye on this issue believe that “first sale” doctrine clearly applies to physical media (whether it be books, DVDs, music CDs, software discs, etc.), but that the legal status of purely digital media under “first sale” is much more of a legal crapshoot, and something that hasn’t yet been settled with any certainty.
Of course, i don’t think any of this really affects EA’s right to charge a second time for online access. They might be douchebags for doing it, but i don’t think there’s any legal barrier to the policy. But there is also, currently at least, no clear legal barrier to selling your second-hand video game discs, as long as you have not made illegal copies before doing so.
All they’ll accomplish is selling the game for $10. People will find paying for a copy is less justified now that the company makes money even on illegal copies.
I also think it will add emphasis to the movement to be able to play these games on ad hoc servers. Ultimately, taking away a freedom you’ve previously granted usually causes people to want to fight back.
Uh - do you actually think Gamestop wouldn’t adjust their price accordingly to move units?!
I don’t have a problem with this. I don’t see the price of the game increasing a single penny if I buy used - GameStop is going to have to drop their price $10 to make a sale.
I think it’s reasonable. If you want to play on EA’s servers it seems fair that they expect you to have paid them for the privilege at some point. It does directly cost them money after all, in a way that playing a copy of a used single player game does not. As long as it doesn’t degrade the experience for the original buyer, like Ubisoft’s stupid new DRM, I’m fine with it.
I think it’s a dumb idea. I understand what they’re getting at, but really, sports games already drop in price incredibly rapidly. Anyone with half an ounce of brains will wait a short time after release and pick up the used games for a song. It really only hurts the early purchasers who pay full retail, which is ill-founded.
EA, though, will do whatever it can to squeeze its customers. They’ve proven that time and time again. This is yet another reason why I avoid EA games.
How is this different than computer software that requires you to register their product before using? (Or locks you out after a certain amount of time running unregistered)?
I think what EA/GameStop are doing is perfectly reasonable, but, if it pisses enough people off, may not be a great business decision. I never play online multiplayer, so it doesn’t effect me, but we’ll see how consumers react.
The way I see it, EA is simply separating out the multiplayer part of their games. When someone buys the game new, they are paying for the game and for the ability to play online. When someone buys it used, they are paying for the game itself, but not the multiplayer, which they can pay for seperately. It’s seems to me to be just a minor redefinition of what you are getting when you buy the games.
I would like it a lot more if the multiplayer part of the game was transferable also (giving the buyer the sign on stuff, etc), which I imagine it would be if, as Tabby said, gave the game to a friend along with her log in stuff. If that’s not the case, I would think a bit less of it. But even with that, I really don’t have a huge problem with it.
And if you do have a problem with it, I would suggest you don’t buy their products anymore.
As to whether it’s smart for the company or not, well, we will see.
Because it’s trivial to both give away or sell computer software and keep it installed on your PC at the same time. For console games, the game goes with the disk - once you’ve sold the disk, you personally cannot play the game any more. So all benefits of the game should transfer with the disk.
But they’re not really separating out the multiplayer part. If they were, they’d drop the price of the new game $10, and any buyer who wanted multiplayer would have to pay that $10 when they accessed the server. Anything that the original buyer gets included in their purchase price should transfer to a used buyer as well.
They’ve always included the multiplayer in the original price, even if you never use it.
Why? Personally, I think it is up to EA to decide what they are selling when they sell a product, and they’ve come out and said “we’re now only selling multiplayer for one use of the product.” As long as they’re not going back and retroactively screwing people who’ve already bought the used product, I have no problem with it. People may not like it, but it’s EA’s call to decide what they are selling to the original user.
But if you resold it, the next user would have access to multiplayer, so it had value.
You may think that personally, but I think the courts would disagree. Everything included in the original purchase price should be transferrable to the next user.