PDA

View Full Version : fine print on ea website!!


kovenant
06-20-2010, 11:32 PM
anybody else notice this statement on ea's website for medal of honor?

"IN ADDITION TO XBOX 360 REQUIREMENTS, ACCESS TO ONLINE SERVICES REQUIRES AN EA ONLINE ACCOUNT AND GAME REGISTRATION WITH ONE-TIME USE SERIAL CODE ENCLOSED WITH NEW, FULL RETAIL PURCHASE. EA ONLINE PRIVACY POLICY AND TERMS OF SERVICE CAN BE FOUND AT www.ea.com. REGISTRATION FOR ONLINE ACCESS IS LIMITED TO ONE EA ACCOUNT PER SERIAL CODE WHICH IS NON-TRANSFERABLE ONCE USED. YOU MUST BE 13+ TO REGISTER FOR AN EA ONLINE ACCOUNT."

as in, if you buy the game used you will not have access to the online portion of the game. project $10 is one thing, but outright denial of a feature of the game is another.

i am all for the project $10 thing ea has going on. i like getting extra content for buying it new vs used. but that's my choice if i don't want the extra content and want to save money by getting a used copy. if ea wants to start banning features of certain games I'm just going to have to refuse to pick up certain titles. when did project 10$ go from "reward new purchases" to "punish everybody else"?????

I bought dragon age used and loved the game so much i bought every piece of dlc including the awakening expansion and im eagerly awaiting the recently announced dragon age 2. i would never have picked up the game if it had a level cap or locked abilities on used copies. they would've lost the $50+ i spent on the game post release.

i was going to buy medal of honor anyway. but this kind of business makes me rethink any other future ea purchases.

stuhp
06-21-2010, 12:48 AM
On a side note, isn't it more like $15? The VIP memberships for Mass Effect 2 and Bad Company 2 are both 1200 points, last time I checked.

You have to look beyond the fine print, though. The act isn't "evil" by some means. It's more of a safety net for EA to gather in more revenue, considering the state of the economy (at least in the United States). Popular titles such as Medal of Honor are bound to get hit with something bigger than the rest, i.e. the VIP requirement for online usage, in an attempt for EA to get more bang out of their products.

Yes, it's not exactly fair for the customer; but like most people, including the customers themselves, the company and the rest of the gaming industry are trying to look out for themselves as well. This is merely a result of their caution.

lip splitter
06-21-2010, 09:47 AM
It was only time that this would be put onto the consoles. The PC games have had this for years. How many more games do you think they would have sold new of sports games that come out each year versus 1 game being returned to a game store where they keep selling it over and over. It is easy to say how a company like EA is a bunch of money hungry bastards but they want to sell as many new games as they can since they dont get crap from used sales or game rentals. I just hope with this extra cash flow they will create some killer IPs.

StayonTarget
06-23-2010, 04:25 PM
That's bull shit. Two things in that one paragraph about EA that piss me off.
Having to be 13+ and making you buy the game new.

dillon
06-23-2010, 04:35 PM
Do you even know what project 10 dollar is? This is it, project $10 has always been that you have to buy the game new to play online. And if you buy it used you get a 7- day free trial then have to buy for.. guess what 10 DOLLARS.

Jethrow
06-26-2010, 06:18 PM
Do you even know what project 10 dollar is? This is it, project $10 has always been that you have to buy the game new to play online. And if you buy it used you get a 7- day free trial then have to buy for.. guess what 10 DOLLARS.

exactly!!

I dont know what the clueless people above are thinking, 1200msp? what are you guys talking about, read up before posting

PsychoMantis SF
06-30-2010, 02:13 PM
Doesn't bother me either way since I never buy used, unless it's an old game. I'm all for this since EA gains no money from used sales and should be getting much more money considering they have put out some quality games. At the end of the day, it's netting them more money and that's how they make a profit.

FYC Punker
07-01-2010, 12:03 AM
Correct me if iam wrong but arent we already paying for online play via Xbox live...?

Mongolian Beef
07-01-2010, 12:11 AM
Correct me if iam wrong but arent we already paying for online play via Xbox live...?

Correct me if I'm wrong but all your live dollars goes into M$' pockets, none to ea or other game developers. LIVE has been and always will be a ripoff, you're basically paying for just party chat.


Regarding MoH: I've played the BETA and it's pretty terrible, they have A LOT of work to do if they want it halfway decent.

ZedChuva
07-31-2010, 11:00 AM
It's just EA whining about something. I buy a lot of used games. Why? Cause MOST games just aren't worth dropping $60 on. $30-40 (or less), no problem. I'm not affected too much by EA's dirtbaggery, cause I rarely, if ever play online MP... but that's not the point. EA are crying like 70% of people or more that play online, are buying used, which just isn't the case. Numbers of online gamers DROP the longer the game is out. If most people purchased used, the inverse would be true.

Of all the EA titles coming out in the next year, the only one I'm getting new is MoH. Only cause I don't want to wait 2-3months to get a good deal on a used copy. I just may not use my "EA Money Club" code, and sell it down the road for $9, just to say "Fuck you" to EA... unless of course they try and make that a crime. :rolleyes:

IncensedCape
08-02-2010, 04:01 PM
That's bull shit. Two things in that one paragraph about EA that piss me off.
Having to be 13+

That should be mandatory for every game if a microphone can be plugged in. In fact, make that 18+ to get rid of the prepubescent squeakers offering modded lobbies to try and scam people, being racist and abusive from in-game voice chat.

Arkalivan
08-02-2010, 04:24 PM
I'm more concerned with the idea of UPlay from Ubisoft really. Perhaps I don't know all the mechanics but from what I understand, if every action in a game is sent through an Ubisoft server for verification, it means I won't be able to play Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood without internet, even on single-player. While most people have a persistent connection these days, it's still crap to have such a requirement, especially if you want to play and your internet is spotty that day, or their servers are.

I'll be getting Medal of Honor, but I do agree it's fairly corrupt to promote new copy purchases by removing features from used copies entirely. If anything, I only see it hurting them in the end. Bundling a bunch of online codes to a login as an extra step, as well as making it difficult to get a good resale value because, simply put, no one will want to buy it off you if it's a gimped version. But hey, I'm no marketing genius, perhaps they're on to something that people will fall for.

swaveman
08-15-2010, 08:34 AM
Correct me if iam wrong but arent we already paying for online play via Xbox live...?

True. But you aren't really paying extra to pay online. Pretty much how this works is when you buy the game used, you will have to dish out an extra $10 to play online. This will bring the price back up to how much it would cost to buy it new. Now, if you were to buy a new game and have to pay extra to play it online, that would be bs. Like everybody has said, this is just an attempt at gaining the most profit possible.

Tip: Preorder the game new buy it new. You get cool extra things and won't have to worry about this at all.

SnowSHOWERS
08-17-2010, 02:43 PM
Okay this V.I.P. content EA has been putting out is so they are gaining revenue from used games. Game stores are the only ones who gain money from used games no money goes to the developement company so by forcing people to pay $15 to access a part of the game if they buy it used allows the developement company to make money from the extra sales. In my opinion it is completely reasonable and understandable as i am all for it because the game studios should be making money for any of the sales not just the new copies.

Keweico
08-20-2010, 11:45 PM
I think itīs pretty fair that developers want to earn some money if their games are sold as used at gamestop or just by friends,but if I wanna take my Medal of Honor to my friends house and not my HDD or Console,we wonīt be able to play online on his console.Thatīs what I just hate about this 10 Dollar project.
Just my 2 cents

OceanH
08-21-2010, 12:25 AM
That's bull shit. Two things in that one paragraph about EA that piss me off.
Having to be 13+ and making you buy the game new.

I'm sorry, how old are you? Are you one of those "Justin Biebers" that's online?

Opiate42
09-10-2010, 04:07 PM
That should be mandatory for every game if a microphone can be plugged in. In fact, make that 18+ to get rid of the prepubescent squeakers offering modded lobbies to try and scam people, being racist and abusive from in-game voice chat.

I'm sorry, how old are you? Are you one of those "Justin Biebers" that's online?

HAHA!! yah um, this and this ^^

If your balls haven't dropped and being still years away from shaving your chin you should not be playing playing online with adults.

TpYourHouse
09-10-2010, 05:16 PM
Wow, I had high hopes for this game, the beta was fantastic, but if there is anything like this I am not getting it.

Sourman145
09-11-2010, 04:58 AM
I hate this idea. Instead of restriciting a component of the game that should be included no matter what, how about giving substantial multiplayer bonuses to those who buy new. A shitload of weapons, maps, extra xp, whatever.

Blkmag1k
09-16-2010, 06:49 PM
better news for me, now I wont have to deal with as many whiny little kids like in MW2

blee717
09-16-2010, 07:28 PM
Instead of restricting a component, they should restrict certain maps.

RedAuerbach
09-18-2010, 08:17 PM
That's bull shit. Two things in that one paragraph about EA that piss me off.
Having to be 13+ and making you buy the game new.

Having to be 13+ pisses you off? Technically, you should be playing Rated E games if you're < 13.

Xenolith666
09-19-2010, 11:47 AM
The main reason EA is doing this is because they don't receive any money from Microsoft for online play on their games.

This 'fee' to play online wouldn't be so hard to swallow if Xbox Live was free. I have no idea what they'll do on PS3 since that is a free service to play online. So should we be more pissed that we Xboxers have to pay $10 for a code to play online? (if we buy used) Or that PS3 owners may get to play online for free.

I was going to Gamefly this.. but that's out since the game technically won't be new and probably won't come with a code.

I don't really back what they are doing though in the long run.. who knows, eventually they might even charge monthly like Microsoft and MMORPG's. And of course, EA as a company as a whole just sux.. always buggy achievements that are never fixed.

sjmleicester
09-23-2010, 03:11 AM
Seems fair enough. I've had hours and hours if not months of entertainment out of Battlefield Bad Company 2 and was glad I pre-ordered the limited edition version to get all the maps.

I'm buying MOH on the basis of DICE (BFBC2) doing the multiplayer on this and expect to get many hours of enjoyment out of this as well. Although I do rent a lot of games I have no problem forking out full price for selected AAA titles and the online code adds to the value of buying new.

I'm sure if you wait a few weeks Amazon or Play.com will have dropped the price and others will be able to jump onboard with a new retail copy.

It if starts to put and end to high street shops keep creaming off profits by reselling used games at top notch prices and offering lousy trade in values, then it can't be a bad thing.

ARC x83x
09-23-2010, 08:05 AM
I'll probably only rent the game on release (so many good new titles coming out recently that I can't justify buying this game) and as long as everyone who plays it is entitled to a 7 day online trial period then it's ok with me.
I do, however, think it could be construed as rather money grabbing by some and lower their reputation with a portion of gamers. I know a few people who already have a very low opinion of EA and try to steer clear of most things associated with them and this will only fan those flames

Zee
09-27-2010, 11:06 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but all your live dollars goes into M$' pockets, none to ea or other game developers. LIVE has been and always will be a ripoff, you're basically paying for just party chat.


Regarding MoH: I've played the BETA and it's pretty terrible, they have A LOT of work to do if they want it halfway decent.
Microsoft provides the servers for most 360 games. Ea just doesn't use them, and rather host there own. Sadly, most of their servers are extremely poor.

ITD Soldierboy
09-27-2010, 10:29 PM
anybody else notice this statement on ea's website for medal of honor?

"IN ADDITION TO XBOX 360 REQUIREMENTS, ACCESS TO ONLINE SERVICES REQUIRES AN EA ONLINE ACCOUNT AND GAME REGISTRATION WITH ONE-TIME USE SERIAL CODE ENCLOSED WITH NEW, FULL RETAIL PURCHASE. EA ONLINE PRIVACY POLICY AND TERMS OF SERVICE CAN BE FOUND AT www.ea.com (http://www.ea.com). REGISTRATION FOR ONLINE ACCESS IS LIMITED TO ONE EA ACCOUNT PER SERIAL CODE WHICH IS NON-TRANSFERABLE ONCE USED. YOU MUST BE 13+ TO REGISTER FOR AN EA ONLINE ACCOUNT."

as in, if you buy the game used you will not have access to the online portion of the game. project $10 is one thing, but outright denial of a feature of the game is another.

i am all for the project $10 thing ea has going on. i like getting extra content for buying it new vs used. but that's my choice if i don't want the extra content and want to save money by getting a used copy. if ea wants to start banning features of certain games I'm just going to have to refuse to pick up certain titles. when did project 10$ go from "reward new purchases" to "punish everybody else"?????

I bought dragon age used and loved the game so much i bought every piece of dlc including the awakening expansion and im eagerly awaiting the recently announced dragon age 2. i would never have picked up the game if it had a level cap or locked abilities on used copies. they would've lost the $50+ i spent on the game post release.

i was going to buy medal of honor anyway. but this kind of business makes me rethink any other future ea purchases.




This is Project $10. Madden 10 had the same thing, to access online you needed to use the code on the back of manual. If you bought used, you would need to pay 800 Microsoft points($10) to play online, otherwise you couldn't go online...

People really need to pay attention...

DeafSunchaser
09-27-2010, 11:09 PM
im confused now so if i buy a game new then sell it after a week of 2 the game shop always list it 2 or 3 pounds cheaper" so if someone buys that at say 35 then pay 10 so total will cost more than what the game is worth new!

ZedChuva
09-30-2010, 11:14 AM
im confused now so if i buy a game new then sell it after a week of 2 the game shop always list it 2 or 3 pounds cheaper" so if someone buys that at say 35 then pay 10 so total will cost more than what the game is worth new!

Yes, which is just one of the reasons this is horsepoop.

Someone said that developers don't make money off used games. That's true, and it's also just how things are. They already made their overpriced $60 off the game initially, and now they're bitching for more. Used sales has been a staple of the entertainment industry for DECADES. You buy a movie/game/CD, a massive percentage of that goes to the studio/dev/label. You sell it, you're recouping some of that money back. It's your right. Then, the reseller makes a marginal (or grossly high if it's GameStop) profit by reselling it. It's how the system has worked for years. There was a law that was floating around for a while that would have it so resellers had to pay a percentage back to the originating distributors of said product. For example, you sell a DVD for $10, the store resells it for $18, they had to reimburse the parent company a percentage of their profit for resale. It's a sticky mess, and drives your resale cost down, and their resale cost up. So you'd end up getting $8 and they'd sell for $20, just to keep things "even".

I say balls to all of it. You buy a game and sell it, the company is in the wrong to now "cripple" half of the game for the person who can't or won't drop $60 on a new game.

That said, I'm still getting the game cause it's looks "smashing". MP be damned. I still say they release 2 versions of the game. A full priced $60 one with all features of campaign and MP, and a "game only" version that has no MP access for $40. I know what I'd buy. Save me $20 on something I never do anyway.

Harpua191
10-04-2010, 01:42 AM
Microsoft provides the servers for most 360 games. Ea just doesn't use them, and rather host there own. Sadly, most of their servers are extremely poor.


I can't agree with you more!

Bay Area gunner
10-04-2010, 03:25 AM
I am wondering if this is legit. I haven't heard anything from the developers or any media, and they usually post something about the whole EA project $10.

Nutty Scouser
10-04-2010, 08:39 AM
Im with american Gunner I havnt heard anything if this is true they will loose a lot of online people becuase some people just cant afford to buy games and need either preowned rented etc..... if this is the case anyway am gonna miss this and buy Call of Duty ----- EA sponge artists

ITD Soldierboy
10-09-2010, 04:53 AM
Yes, which is just one of the reasons this is horsepoop.

Someone said that developers don't make money off used games. That's true, and it's also just how things are. They already made their overpriced $60 off the game initially, and now they're bitching for more. Used sales has been a staple of the entertainment industry for DECADES. You buy a movie/game/CD, a massive percentage of that goes to the studio/dev/label. You sell it, you're recouping some of that money back. It's your right. Then, the reseller makes a marginal (or grossly high if it's GameStop) profit by reselling it. It's how the system has worked for years. There was a law that was floating around for a while that would have it so resellers had to pay a percentage back to the originating distributors of said product. For example, you sell a DVD for $10, the store resells it for $18, they had to reimburse the parent company a percentage of their profit for resale. It's a sticky mess, and drives your resale cost down, and their resale cost up. So you'd end up getting $8 and they'd sell for $20, just to keep things "even".

I say balls to all of it. You buy a game and sell it, the company is in the wrong to now "cripple" half of the game for the person who can't or won't drop $60 on a new game.

That said, I'm still getting the game cause it's looks "smashing". MP be damned. I still say they release 2 versions of the game. A full priced $60 one with all features of campaign and MP, and a "game only" version that has no MP access for $40. I know what I'd buy. Save me $20 on something I never do anyway.

First off, developers don't make 60 off each game. Retailers get the games for about half that price and that 30 is split up usually into two to three ways before it's actually given to the developer. Even then it's not an equal portion.

Also if you think that used sales don't hurt the developers then that's even more crazy. That's one less copy that is pure profit to just the retailer and not given to the developer in any way shape or form.

ajennice
10-09-2010, 03:12 PM
I've got no problem with this copncept, providing EA made a game worth the cash.

But here's what bundles my bag... I've played alot of EA games on my PC. Everytime there is an issue, I go to their site and look thru the knowledge base. If it's not covered, I'll submit a question... Dating back to the frist Command and Conquer they did I have not got 1 reply to (looking up my account)... 74 inquiries about tech issues.

SO I'm not going to spend the cash on any of their games unitl the bug are out and updates are applied. May as well wait till it's fixed throughout before laying dwn any cash on it.
I've got our store copy and it's got a ser number on it, so I may use it if no one else at the store wants it first.