In defense of Project 5/10 Dollar (EA and THQ)

[matrimelee]

Having played some Halo 3 Team Swat last night, I came to the conclusion that every game publisher needs to come up with their own paid online play (ala EA and THQ).

EA recently started including vouchers for free online play with their new sports games, and THQ did the same with UFC 2010. So the rub is that they're charging people that don't buy new, or that buy outside the code's expiration date.

Hold your applause. The popular thing for internet gaming websites to do, is to rail against this idea. Then again, to rail against any idea that makes a game company money... As they happily take their advertising dollars.

Back to Team Swat. It's rampantly savaged by unscrupulous players, in the worst way. Halo 3 has a ranking system, where you can rank up or down based on skill level. This was a great idea on paper, but in reality you have skilled players making brand new live accounts (often with the free 48 hour trial) and utterly destroying people that are below their skill level. Imagine if they had to pay $5, every time they reset their skill level to 1. Probably wouldn't happen so often, would it?

Halo 3 isn't the only game that's being ruined by people like this, they come in all kinds. People hacking Left 4 Dead, people quitting out of matches in fighting games, getting banned from live and coming right back with new accounts...

Has anyone thought of this paid online play this way? Basically you're applying serial numbers to console games, mating them with gamertags. Awesome, if you ask me.

Sure, encourage people to buy new (which is for the best anyway). I'm sure a lot of people would be bummed to not save $5 on a game at Gamestop, but have patience folks. Games haven't dropped in price this quickly since the big crash. Many retailers are slashing new game prices, and adding gift cards on top of that, hoping you'll come back next time.

One more thing, in defense of buying new. Who would YOU rather give your money to? The guy selling used stuff, or the guy that made it? It's really that simple, anyway.

 

[NeoTheranthrope]

For me, a game is like a book. I buy a game/book it comes home, I have a look-see, if there's something there that really catches my interest I'll dive right in, but usually, it gets placed on on to of the stack of games/book which I haven't played/read, and it will wait it's turn.

CD rot and silverfish aside, neither books nor games have an expiration date, however books don't usually* have online-element that games do, which adds a whole new different element to replayability. Game companies' exist to make money, online elements exist to make a game more commercially attractive, but when a particular game's sales has run it's course, and the servers running the game's online features start costing more money than they bring in, it's natural for the game makers' to pull the plug on the servers.

This creates a situation where a particular game's full experience, via its online features, become a limited perishable commodity.

There's no point for me, crabby old-fart gamer that I am, to buying a game that I can't enjoy it's full experience, because the game company shut down the servers X-many years before I get around to finally playing the damm thing.

Anyway, the company's not going to make a dime from me, because I bought it used and had someone else eat the "online tax" for me, or by simply not buying the game at all...

Either way, trying to make me spend money for features I won't even use is not going to engender me as a paying customer. Who the hell do they think they are!? The fucking phone company?







*the exception to that are collage textbooks; but that's part of a scam by greedy publishers to undermine resale value of perfectly good used books to bookstores, and has nothing to do with the actual usability or intrinsic value of any particular book.

 

[elixir]

Actually, every 360 is entitled to 3 different accounts with 1 free month each.

 

[Buro Destruct]

every game publisher needs to come up with their own paid online play (ala EA and THQ).

i almost stopped reading here. what an insanely backwards idea. the industry doesn't need to fracture its customer-base further. there are approximately 7 major gaming platforms in the market today, and maybe 8-10 companies who publish games with an online component on a regular basis. you really think the industry will benefit from asking people to manage all that nonsense?

no.

The popular thing for internet gaming websites to do, is to rail against this idea. Then again, to rail against any idea that makes a game company money... As they happily take their advertising dollars.

no, the popular thing to do is to rally against companies bilking their customers out of money they shouldn't have to pay.

Back to Team Swat. It's rampantly savaged by unscrupulous players, in the worst way. Halo 3 has a ranking system, where you can rank up or down based on skill level. This was a great idea on paper, but in reality you have skilled players making brand new live accounts (often with the free 48 hour trial) and utterly destroying people that are below their skill level. Imagine if they had to pay $5, every time they reset their skill level to 1. Probably wouldn't happen so often, would it?

welcome to the internet, where the strong prey on the weak. happens everyday. i don't advise you ever play an mmorpg if you find this kind of behavior deeply upsetting. its also a flaw inherent in the structure of having layers of service (Bungie.net inside of XBL) and not really a problem you should remedy by simply "throwing money at it" by charging people. instead, bungie and microsoft could work a method for players to designate a "ranked account" on their machine that is the only account allowed to play ranked matches. if someone wants to go out of their way to re-format their machine or buy a new 360 just so they can rail on some lowbie players, more power to their stupidity then.

One more thing, in defense of buying new. Who would YOU rather give your money to? The guy selling used stuff, or the guy that made it? It's really that simple, anyway.

i'd rather give it directly to the developers as a reward for their creativity and remove publishers from the equation entirely.

 

[Dinodoedoe]

Business is business.

If you don't like this then don't buy from EA. It really that simple. If they start losing money from this, they are going to do a 180 real quick.

All I know is that this should make the used games depreciate in value by at least $10 right?

I really have no issue with them trying to do this really. I tend to buy new and now that this is becoming the norm, I'm going to have to take a long hard look to see if the game is worth buying used.

The technology is there and I'm more curious to see if everyone complaining will actually follow through by not buying from them.

 

[Average Joe]

Not to be impertinent but the problem with Halo 3 isn't the issue with veterans making new accounts, it's actually droppers and team-killers that ruin the overall online gameplay more than anything.

 

[Ghost-Dog]

Not to be impertinent but the problem with Halo 3 isn't the issue with veterans making new accounts, it's actually droppers and team-killers that ruin the overall online gameplay more than anything.

Totally agree.

And the solution isn't making a new pay-for-play model, it's building better tools into the game to weed these cocksuckers out. For one, when (and if) they get caught being douchebags, they should be banned from XBL, not just the game.

The problem with Halo 3, is that unless they are cheating outright or being racist, there is no way to report them under the ToS. You can give them a negative review, but that does not bring them under scrutiny of any kind that I know of.

 

[Hikaru Ichijyo]

Sure, encourage people to buy new (which is for the best anyway). I'm sure a lot of people would be bummed to not save $5 on a game at Gamestop, but have patience folks. Games haven't dropped in price this quickly since the big crash. Many retailers are slashing new game prices, and adding gift cards on top of that, hoping you'll come back next time.

I don't mean to sound rude but I think you should look up the definition of "quickly". If a game is a stinker, then yes, the price of the game sinks like a rock in a pond. However, if the game is decent, sells well, or is a mainstream title, then the game can hold it's value for a while. Most all of the first party Wii titles are still full price. I do realize that Nintendo may be the exception to the rule but their pricing scheme alone throws a wrench in the whole "slashing new prices" argument. Nintendo aside though, I've seen that it can take up to a year or more for a game to reach a budget status. Take a game like Prototype. It's been out for a year and while it's half of what it cost new, that's still $10-15 more than I personally want to pay for it. We can go back and forth all day long on the how and whys of pricing but the simple fact of the matter is my pricing threshold on games is in that $10-20 range. Like I mentioned earlier, unless the game stinks, it's anything but quick for most games to reach that price point.

One more thing, in defense of buying new. Who would YOU rather give your money to? The guy selling used stuff, or the guy that made it? It's really that simple, anyway.

I'll give my money to whoever sells it for the price I want to pay for it. I would certainly prefer the best price come from the maker, but that's almost never the case.

 

[Deuce]

Take a game like Prototype. It's been out for a year and while it's half of what it cost new, that's still $10-15 more than I personally want to pay for it.

I routinely see it for $20 these days.

I'll give my money to whoever sells it for the price I want to pay for it.

"What you're willing to pay" and "a reasonable price" do not always (or necessarily even often) coincide.

There is the distinct possibility that you're simply a cheapskate.

 

[Hikaru Ichijyo]

I routinely see it for $20 these days.

Awesome. It's a great buy at that price. I got my pricing from sites of stores that I normally frequent, namely Gamestop, Best Buy, Wal-Mart and Target. All of them had it listed for $30. I'm sure if I looked harder and it was a higher priority on my gaming list, I could find it at the prices you're saying you see it at (I assume you mean new of course).

"What you're willing to pay" and "a reasonable price" do not always (or necessarily even often) coincide.

I'm sure we could split hairs on this all day long. I'd like to think that what I'm willing to pay is a reasonable price. I know at the price threshold I stick to, there's HUNDREDS of titles available to me. Sure, a ton of those titles are shovelware, but there's also a decent amount of titles that are of better than average quality and those are the ones I'm usually shopping for.

There is the distinct possibility that you're simply a cheapskate.

Possibly. You say cheapskate, I say frugal. Control the language and you win, right? If that was a passive attempt at a swipe, that's fine. I won't take it as such because when it comes to my hobbies at least, I try to get the most for my money.

 

[NeoTheranthrope]

Business is business.

If you don't like this then don't buy from EA. It really that simple. If they start losing money from this, they are going to do a 180 real quick.

EASIEST. BOYCOTT. EVAR.


Actually, I don't think I even own any EA games, at least nothing post-Dreamcast era.


The only two times online-content bit me on the ass: were when Capcom shut down the Steel Battalion servers (They were up for less than a fucking year. I bought your stupid/awesome $200 controller, but you made no fucking content for it; WTH Capcom?!), and Sega's stupid SegaNet unlockable content for the Dreamcast version of Skies of Arcadia.

 

[Lastblade]

I don't mind it too much. The few games that I play online a lot are usually those I buy at release anyway. Games like Bad Company 2, NHL series, etc. Games that I don't play online, I honestly don't care and will either buy used or when it drops to $15.

 

[matrimelee]

I don't mean to sound rude but I think you should look up the definition of "quickly". If a game is a stinker, then yes, the price of the game sinks like a rock in a pond. However, if the game is decent, sells well, or is a mainstream title, then the game can hold it's value for a while. Most all of the first party Wii titles are still full price. I do realize that Nintendo may be the exception to the rule but their pricing scheme alone throws a wrench in the whole "slashing new prices" argument. Nintendo aside though, I've seen that it can take up to a year or more for a game to reach a budget status. Take a game like Prototype. It's been out for a year and while it's half of what it cost new, that's still $10-15 more than I personally want to pay for it. We can go back and forth all day long on the how and whys of pricing but the simple fact of the matter is my pricing threshold on games is in that $10-20 range. Like I mentioned earlier, unless the game stinks, it's anything but quick for most games to reach that price point.




I'll give my money to whoever sells it for the price I want to pay for it. I would certainly prefer the best price come from the maker, but that's almost never the case.

Glad to reply. Yes, to me, you are being cheap. Apparently, there are quite a few people that do the same, as publishers now issue reprints with these prices!

All you have to do is wait. My price, when new, is 45 dollars. I rarely wait more than two weeks from release, these days.

EASIEST. BOYCOTT. EVAR.


Actually, I don't think I even own any EA games, at least nothing post-Dreamcast era.


The only two times online-content bit me on the ass: were when Capcom shut down the Steel Battalion servers (They were up for less than a fucking year. I bought your stupid/awesome $200 controller, but you made no fucking content for it; WTH Capcom?!), and Sega's stupid SegaNet unlockable content for the Dreamcast version of Skies of Arcadia.

Not a fanboy for any company, but EA puts out good games now. The Skate series, Dead Space, Dante's Inferno, Burnout series, etc.

Capcom rapes their players pretty routinely to this day. I bought Bionic Commando and Dark Void on release day.

 

[Lagduf]

If you want to play Team SWAT then go play Call of Duty.

I stopped reading this thread when I saw "Team SWAT"

 

[matrimelee]

If you want to play Team SWAT then go play Call of Duty.

I stopped reading this thread when I saw "Team SWAT"

I have had many enjoyable sessions playing Team Swat on Halo 3. You hate, because you are ignorant.

I enjoy Call of Duty, but not as much. I just prefer the sci-fi setting and 4 on 4 action of Team Swat on Halo 3.

 

[matrimelee]

Not to be impertinent but the problem with Halo 3 isn't the issue with veterans making new accounts, it's actually droppers and team-killers that ruin the overall online gameplay more than anything.

Totally agree.

And the solution isn't making a new pay-for-play model, it's building better tools into the game to weed these cocksuckers out. For one, when (and if) they get caught being douchebags, they should be banned from XBL, not just the game.

The problem with Halo 3, is that unless they are cheating outright or being racist, there is no way to report them under the ToS. You can give them a negative review, but that does not bring them under scrutiny of any kind that I know of.

Just wrong, in my experience. I have rarely had to deal with team killing on Halo 3. Now Rainbow Six Vegas, there it is almost a requirement...

No, my problem is with the jerkoffs that get very good at the game, then start over at level 1.

I could be that kind of headache for people in a couple of games, but it doesn't seem right. Where is the fun?

Back on topic: I still agree with what THQ and EA are doing, and encourage other publishers to follow suit.

 

[Average Joe]

I have rarely had to deal with team killing on Halo 3.

You must be the luckiest Halo 3 player in the world then.

I can't go a session without running into at least a couple of douchebags who feel the need to constantly drop their own teammates shields for the fun of it.

 

[elixir]

Now that I've actually had a chance to read through this thread...

I think it's a horrible idea to bind a game to a gamertag or PSN ID, because purchasing it will immediately invalidate all value it has unless you actually play it. You can't lend it to your friends. It's not possible to sell the game as it wouldn't work on anyone else's console unless you provide them with your gamertag, which is just stupid.

At times I'd rather buy games off eBay so I don't indirectly support the company, but someone who already has.

Having certain games require you to pay in order to play is going to become pricey when you add the cost together with Xbox Live, which means some people will side with PSN, which is free. PSN obviously has more idiots, evidently because it's free. I think PSN would be more beneficial if it had a monthly fee, because that would clean off a good portion of people who feel like they're entitled to do whatever they want. Mostly Japanese.

Thank god the 360 doesn't have free online capabilities.

Except once Microsoft catches on and they start charging monthly subscriptions for their games, which means more profit combined with Xbox Gold accounts, which means more consoles, which means more people, which means more idiots. It doesn't really help in the end.

There's also those people out there that can't afford monthly subscription fees, refuse to pay for them, or would rather use PSN. There's legitimate PSN users who use it primarily because it's free and they couldn't afford it otherwise. If PSN was no longer free, they'd have to implement a service which can be statistically proven to be above that of Xbox Live's service, or it's not worth paying for. Sony's not going to do that.

Free online/lack of obligation also means a game's likely to be more popular, and have more longitivity. More popularity = more sales = sequel. Call of Duty has practically been living off this cycle since birth.

In any case, the reason why I don't play MMORPGs is because the majority of them are a) addictive as all hell and b) require a monthly subscription fee. Otherwise, I'd probably be playing them right now. I think to myself "hey, I've purchased this game, why do I need to continually pay in order to get maximum value out of it?" and some of these MMORPGs in particular will close your account, erasing all progress you've done, unless you keep up the monthly fee. So yeah, I'm not really a fan of blackmail either.

It's not my responsibility for the servers or the community inside of them. I'd be willing to keep games alive by actively participating in their communities providing I'm not shoehorned into some pyramid scheme. I hope everyone ends up taking this attitude, so MMORPGs eventually die out, along with ideas like this.

 

[Lagduf]

I have had many enjoyable sessions playing Team Swat on Halo 3. You hate, because you are ignorant.

I enjoy Call of Duty, but not as much. I just prefer the sci-fi setting and 4 on 4 action of Team Swat on Halo 3.

I hate SWAT because I don't enjoy it and I personally feel that gametype is at odds with the core gameplay of Halo: Guns, Grenades, and Melee. For single shot kills, I'll play CoD.

I respect Halo 3 for being so versatile though in its ability to produce a wide range of highly varied gametypes.

@K999 - Not sure what gametypes you like on Halo 3, but I always found the key to success in it, and any only multiplayer game was simply to play with people you know. That what you know your team isn't full of dickweeds. I honestly don't bother to play many games online that my friends don't play if TKing is a possibility.

 

[matrimelee]

You must be the luckiest Halo 3 player in the world then.

I can't go a session without running into at least a couple of douchebags who feel the need to constantly drop their own teammates shields for the fun of it.

It could be the time of day I play, usually around midnight to 7 am eastern US time. I definitely have always seen a different group of players than most.

Once the brits started getting online, Burnout Paradise and Rainbow Six Vegas were always much more enjoyable games.

 

[matrimelee]

Now that I've actually had a chance to read through this thread...

I think it's a horrible idea to bind a game to a gamertag or PSN ID, because purchasing it will immediately invalidate all value it has unless you actually play it. You can't lend it to your friends. It's not possible to sell the game as it wouldn't work on anyone else's console unless you provide them with your gamertag, which is just stupid.

At times I'd rather buy games off eBay so I don't indirectly support the company, but someone who already has.

Having certain games require you to pay in order to play is going to become pricey when you add the cost together with Xbox Live, which means some people will side with PSN, which is free. PSN obviously has more idiots, evidently because it's free. I think PSN would be more beneficial if it had a monthly fee, because that would clean off a good portion of people who feel like they're entitled to do whatever they want. Mostly Japanese.

Thank god the 360 doesn't have free online capabilities.

Except once Microsoft catches on and they start charging monthly subscriptions for their games, which means more profit combined with Xbox Gold accounts, which means more consoles, which means more people, which means more idiots. It doesn't really help in the end.

There's also those people out there that can't afford monthly subscription fees, refuse to pay for them, or would rather use PSN. There's legitimate PSN users who use it primarily because it's free and they couldn't afford it otherwise. If PSN was no longer free, they'd have to implement a service which can be statistically proven to be above that of Xbox Live's service, or it's not worth paying for. Sony's not going to do that.

Free online/lack of obligation also means a game's likely to be more popular, and have more longitivity. More popularity = more sales = sequel. Call of Duty has practically been living off this cycle since birth.

In any case, the reason why I don't play MMORPGs is because the majority of them are a) addictive as all hell and b) require a monthly subscription fee. Otherwise, I'd probably be playing them right now. I think to myself "hey, I've purchased this game, why do I need to continually pay in order to get maximum value out of it?" and some of these MMORPGs in particular will close your account, erasing all progress you've done, unless you keep up the monthly fee. So yeah, I'm not really a fan of blackmail either.

It's not my responsibility for the servers or the community inside of them. I'd be willing to keep games alive by actively participating in their communities providing I'm not shoehorned into some pyramid scheme. I hope everyone ends up taking this attitude, so MMORPGs eventually die out, along with ideas like this.

We aren't talking about binding the whole game to the gamertag, just the online play. MMORPGs are a whole different ball game.

Actually if you log in much on both PS3 and 360, you might be surprised to learn that the PS3 community is generally more likeable, except for so many not having a mic.

Which, depending on your perspective, might be for the best.

 

[HeartlessNinny]

I said this in another thread already, but I'll repeat myself:

I don't mind if publishers add something to the game as a bonus to encourage me to buy it new, but to take something away instead is fucking lame. All else being equal, I'll skip that shit and give my money to publishers that reward my loyalty, not the ones that punish me for being disloyal.