DRM, Online Pass, Project Ten Dollar and the like

[Yantelope]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying TN. The two counterpoints that I would like to make is that online gaming doesn't have to be a paid service. Back in the day all the servers were run by third parties and gamers and if you wanted to buy and operate your own server you could. It wasn't until MS and others decided they could make money by locking the service to their own servers and then claiming that you needed to purchase the service from them did it change.

 

There's also the point that when you purchase the rights to use the service and then transfer the rights to use that service to another user you still only have one user per license using that service. The operating cost to EA remains the same as the user base does not increase when you sell a game back to gamestop. When you introduce the "online pass" you're essentially charging for the service multiple times for the same copy even though no more than one person per copy will ever be using that service.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Yantelope

[Saturnine Tenshi]

You are not seriously complaining that if you don't even log in to Origin for two years that EA "may" delete your account for non use? It's a classic CMA clause in the EULA. In most EULAs half of it is stuff that is included to cover worst case scenarios and the other half is bluff clauses that wouldn't stand up in court for longer than it took a judge to clear his throat. Really not worth the panic.

 

Yes, I would complain. Just as I would have complained when EADM introduced fees for long-term(2 year) downloading of games. If I was a person who complained about these things, I would certainly do so.

 

The point is that it's there. If you're trying to table a justifiable digital distribution service, you don't continue to implement elements that place you below the bar. You copy what works, and improve upon that. Increasingly draconian standards are silly, backwards things in the face of advancement. I won't assume you're a partisan just because you're arguing them, but anyone who supports the relentless wading through a growing mire of fees, needless restrictions and DLC, premeditated or not, surely is a masochist.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Saturnine Tenshi

[Thursday Next]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying TN. The one counterpoint that I would like to make is that online gaming doesn't have to be a paid service. Back in the day all the servers were run by third parties and gamers and if you wanted to buy and operate your own server you could. It wasn't until MS and others decided they could make money by locking the service to their own servers and then claiming that you needed to purchase the service from them did it change.

 

There's also the point that when you purchase the rights to use the service and then transfer the rights to use that service to another user you still only have one user per license using that service. The operating cost to EA remains the same as the user base does not increase when you sell a game back to gamestop. When you introduce the "online pass" you're essentially charging for the service multiple times for the same copy even though no more than one person per copy will ever be using that service.

 

 

Fair points both. Where third party RSPs are the norm there is no justification for an Online Pass. However, since that only applies to PC, where used game sales are non-existent it's something of a moot point. Were consoles to have some form of RSP program so that users were directly paying for servers, Online Pass becomes harder to justify.

 

With regard to number of simultaneous users, I agree that it does not necessarily mean an extra cost, in fact, if a 24/7 online player sold the game to a lighter gamer, then the load on and cost to EA would in fact decrease. I would still hold to the justification that the single player game and multiplayer service are separate. You sell the disc on with the single player content, but you burnt the code. Perhaps a suitable analogy for this would be selling a pay as you go phone. You can either sell the phone with minutes on it (i.e. don't use the Online Pass code) or you can use the minutes and sell the phone and leave the next guy to top it up with a tenner (or buy an online pass).

[Thursday Next]

You are not seriously complaining that if you don't even log in to Origin for two years that EA "may" delete your account for non use? It's a classic CMA clause in the EULA. In most EULAs half of it is stuff that is included to cover worst case scenarios and the other half is bluff clauses that wouldn't stand up in court for longer than it took a judge to clear his throat. Really not worth the panic.

 

Yes, I would complain. Just as I would have complained when EADM introduced fees for long-term(2 year) downloading of games. If I was a person who complained about these things, I would certainly do so.

 

The point is that it's there. If you're trying to table a justifiable digital distribution service, you don't continue to implement elements that place you below the bar. You copy what works, and improve upon that. Increasingly draconian standards are silly, backwards things in the face of advancement. I won't assume you're a partisan just because you're arguing them, but anyone who supports the relentless wading through a growing mire of fees, needless restrictions and DLC, premeditated or not, surely is a masochist.

 

How are these clauses any better?

 

"Either you or Valve has the right to terminate or cancel your Account or a particular Subscription at any time."

 

"C. Termination by Valve.

1. In the case of a recurring payment Subscription (e.g., a monthly subscription), in the event that Valve terminates or cancels your Account or a particular Subscription for convenience, Valve may, but is not obligated to, provide a prorated refund of any prepaid Subscription fees paid to Valve.

2. In the case of a one-time purchase of a product license (e.g., purchase of a single game) from Valve, Valve may choose to terminate or cancel your Subscription in its entirety or may terminate or cancel only a portion of the Subscription (e.g., access to the software via Steam) and Valve may, but is not obligated to, provide access (for a limited period of time) to the download of a stand-alone version of the software and content associated with such one-time purchase.

3. In the case of a free Subscription, Valve may choose to terminate or amend the terms of the Subscription as provided in the "Amendments to this Agreement" section above."

 

In plain English: Valve can basically shut you down at any time and burn all your content. They can (if they want to) offer you a replacement download, but they don't have to.

 

These clauses are everywhere and EA's are no more Draconian than Valves.

[Yantelope]

but we love valve and want steam to have our children. Stop crushing our dreams!

[deanb]

You seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact that online gaming is a service. It requires continual investment to run, not just server space but the people to run/maintain the servers, the hardware, the software updates, all that stuff. Analogies with car parts don't really work because once a seat is in a car it costs nothing for the manufacturer to leave it in and would cost more to take it out. They do still charge you for servicing though if you go through their dealers.

 

Not ignoring that it costs something to run. I'm just curious on why it costs $10 more to host a used player?

• I buy the game new for $60, I play BF3 MP to death until BF4 comes out two years later. (Which is shown to be the case with MP games like BF3)
  
• Yante buys the game for $60 plays MP for a month then trades it in to buy MW3. Saturnine then buys this used bF3 copy and pays $10 to play online until BF3 comes out.
  

 

Both have had the MP service used the same amount but the second copy of BF3 brought in $10 extra.

 

Just to scale this up (cos I went to get some tea and my mind sparked):

 

If 1000 (not scaling too high) copies of BF3 are sold for new at launch for $60. It can be assumed $10 of this cost goes toward funding the multiplayer servers (since that's the charge for online to used players)

So that's $10,000 in the kitty to pay for Multiplayer. If all of these new users keep hold of the game and play the MP until BF4 thats $10,000 to fund 2 years or so of online for 1000 people.

 

If however those 1000 people trade in the game 1 month in and 1000 people buy the used copies and a $10 online pass that means there is $20,000 in the kitty to fund the same amount, 1000 people, for 2 years until BF4.

 

Which leads to two conclusions:

1. EA are greedy scumbags and the charge for Online Pass isn't needed at all since used players cost no more than a new user. (As you've pointed out in the pirate thread a few times one game can't be used at the same time by two people)

2. Without used game sales EA can't actually afford to run their MP servers.

 

In order to make up the same $20,000 the Used sales bring in to support MP you'd need to sell double the New copies, but that also means supporting double the players too.

 

Getting angry because ME2 was planned to have more content added at a later date doesn't make any sense to me. Either they magically added in extra rooms to the Normandy which would have left people moaning that the layout was wrong and there were more windows inside than outside and why didn't EA think it through instead of foisting ill conceived tacked on DLC on the game or they put the rooms in during early development so that everything meshes together nicely. Do you get annoyed that your legos had bits sticking out that are obviously there so that more legos can be stuck on them?

Zaeed wasn't "at a later date" it came out the same time as the launch of the rest of the game. Dragon Age has done the same too. The content was all ready n tied up for launch but instead of being in the game it was up as DLC. Oh and we're left moaning that there's a couple of rooms in the Normandy obviously added in to accommodate 2 party members, yet you can get to the end of the game and they're not filled in. I'd be a bit miffed if I bought a lego car and the picture had a spoiler on but there was none in my box.

 

With regard to Demos/Early Access. It's not semantics. Early Access is the full game, downloaded to your console / PC in advance. There's nothing to suggest that demos won't continue to be released as before, but they will be small portions of the game, a couple of teams and limited gameplay options. There was some talk of having Season Ticket overlap with release, maybe this was dropped or maybe it's in the pipeline. I don't know.

You have timed limited access to the game before launch. And coming out before the main game is usually the point of the demo. And the early access is of little use to those outside of the US since all it does it bring it in step with the US launch. So instead of doing a $25 early access scheme, why not just bring the global launch dates 3 days earlier instead?

 

 

Buying music, films and so forth are not services. They are products. You don't see official forums for every album / film release filled with people asking for x or y issue to be fixed. If Maximus is wearing a Casio in Gladiator there will not be a patch to fix it or if there is it will be in a new boxed product which you will have to buy, if Jimmi Hendrix misses a chord they won't correct the error. You got the content, that's it. Game publishers are service providers. They support products, sometimes years after launch in a way that album and film makers do not as such they deserve to be paid for every copy sold, even second hand ones, because these days they are expected to continue to support products after they have been purchased irrespective of if they were purchased first hand, second hand or swapped with a mate.

 

Well once again we come across the bit of maths up top. If the used market was to stop does that mean that EA would no longer be able to afford to support these games with patches and multiplayer since the only income they have is the initial new purchase? Also Blu-Ray have online components btw (and most give you 3 versions of the film lately aswell).

 

That said, I wouldn't have an issue if any shop (bar charity shops) that sells goods second hand had to kick a % to the original manufacturer (maybe stick a 5-10 year limit on it or something so older stuff is exempt).

Because that would be easy to sort out. And a 5-10 year limit in gaming means this used sale charge spanning entire generations and in some cases out living the life of studios. And how would these fees be collected and distributed?

[RockyRan]

How are these clauses any better?

 

It's simple. Valve does the very typical "we can deny service to you for any reason" clause, whereas EA's EULA specifically states at which point will they deny service to you, and specifically use the word will in such a case, not "may".

 

If you have not used your Entitlements or Account for twenty four (24) months or more and your Account has associated Entitlements, your Entitlements will expire and your Account may be cancelled for non-use.

 

It's far more specific, and thus more draconian.

 

In regards to the used games making a dent on service costs, it simply isn't true. When a copy is sold the physical copy as well as ownership and ability to play the game is transferred. Person A playing the game for a month then selling it to person B who plays it for a month takes exactly the same effort from EA's part as person A playing the game for two months without selling it. There's no "extra" cost incurred when accommodating used game owners. Simple.

[Chewblaha]

Oh. I never posted in here, I don't think I have at least.

 

Point is.

 

If companies wanna protect how they produce money with all that, go for it.

 

That's the point of a business after all.

[RockyRan]

At the end of the day, I agree technically speaking. It's their business, they can run it the way they want.

 

Doesn't mean I have to agree with it, doesn't mean they can be dicks about it, and it doesn't mean I have to accept it or buy their products. But yes, they can do what they want, ultimately.

[Chewblaha]

Oh. I don't agree with it either. Just stating realistic facts.

[RockyRan]

Oh. I don't agree with it either. Just stating realistic facts.

 

Indeed. I began to think about what would happen if someone would run a business in deliberately the worst possible way, then I remembered this:

 

 

Then I laffed.

[Chewblaha]

Oh. That is a hilarious clip, btw. Louis CK is pretty mush a yeenyus.

[Chewblaha]

Yehyehyeh. With DRM it's pretty much nothing you can do but complain about it.

 

Only thing is that there's not much you can say about it except for "I agree with it" or "I disagree with it."

Edited August 4, 2011 by Chewblaha

[Thursday Next]

Getting angry because ME2 was planned to have more content added at a later date doesn't make any sense to me. Either they magically added in extra rooms to the Normandy which would have left people moaning that the layout was wrong and there were more windows inside than outside and why didn't EA think it through instead of foisting ill conceived tacked on DLC on the game or they put the rooms in during early development so that everything meshes together nicely. Do you get annoyed that your legos had bits sticking out that are obviously there so that more legos can be stuck on them?

Zaeed wasn't "at a later date" it came out the same time as the launch of the rest of the game. Dragon Age has done the same too. The content was all ready n tied up for launch but instead of being in the game it was up as DLC. Oh and we're left moaning that there's a couple of rooms in the Normandy obviously added in to accommodate 2 party members, yet you can get to the end of the game and they're not filled in. I'd be a bit miffed if I bought a lego car and the picture had a spoiler on but there was none in my box.

 

Was Zaeed on the ME2 box? If not, why would you expect him to be included? As explained before, DLC is a separate product, with a separate budget. It's not "cut" from the main game. No one seems to have an issue with "extended editions" of movies. It's the same principal here.

 

Buying music, films and so forth are not services. They are products. You don't see official forums for every album / film release filled with people asking for x or y issue to be fixed. If Maximus is wearing a Casio in Gladiator there will not be a patch to fix it or if there is it will be in a new boxed product which you will have to buy, if Jimmi Hendrix misses a chord they won't correct the error. You got the content, that's it. Game publishers are service providers. They support products, sometimes years after launch in a way that album and film makers do not as such they deserve to be paid for every copy sold, even second hand ones, because these days they are expected to continue to support products after they have been purchased irrespective of if they were purchased first hand, second hand or swapped with a mate.

 

Well once again we come across the bit of maths up top. If the used market was to stop does that mean that EA would no longer be able to afford to support these games with patches and multiplayer since the only income they have is the initial new purchase? Also Blu-Ray have online components btw (and most give you 3 versions of the film lately aswell).

 

You have to pay quite a bit more for those triple play versions. Also, I've never seen an "online" component on blu-ray that does anything beyond direct me to a website.

 

That said, I wouldn't have an issue if any shop (bar charity shops) that sells goods second hand had to kick a % to the original manufacturer (maybe stick a 5-10 year limit on it or something so older stuff is exempt).

Because that would be easy to sort out. And a 5-10 year limit in gaming means this used sale charge spanning entire generations and in some cases out living the life of studios. And how would these fees be collected and distributed?

 

That was a hypothetical, tongue in cheek comment.

 

Let's get things in perspective here. I work for a publisher. I don't like that when Gamestop post profits that a large chunk of that is from selling games two or more times when I know that my company and others that actually make the content don't see any return on that. I want everyone to play my publishers games and I want them to do so by pre-ordering the stupid, exclusive, premium, uber, [studio Name], special, collectors edition. Buying it new, on day one, and purchasing every single saddle, hat, and map pack we offer up. I want this because it directly impacts my financial situation.

 

On the other hand, I'm a consumer, when I buy retail games I always buy new, that said, I do also trade in my games, when I trade them in it annoys me that I'm being given £10 tops by Game, who will then put it on the shelf for at least £30 (selling them for over £20 is also the reason that I don't buy them used - Used should be half the price of new, not 10% off). I could fix this by selling games on ebay, but I'm too lazy.

 

Finally, I quite like DLC. Most games I play take me a few weeks to complete if not longer what with work commitments and all, but if I really liked it, being able to get another couple of quests for a few quid is, to my mind, a bonus. I honestly think that ME2 and Dragon Age DLC does provide good value for money. The stories are generally well fleshed out and I like that the new characters blend in with the old ones and mesh with the story. If that bonus DLC comes in the form of a code in a box as a reward for buying new, so much the better.

[deanb]

Was Zaeed on the ME2 box? If not, why would you expect him to be included? As explained before, DLC is a separate product, with a separate budget. It's not "cut" from the main game. No one seems to have an issue with "extended editions" of movies. It's the same principal here.

Because the normandy was obviously all modelled to accommodate 12 party members yet the standard game only allows you to acquire 10. Also are you're telling me

 

That in Mass Effect 3 I can expect to be getting a party of 3 only if I buy DLC? Cos there's nothing but Shepard on the box.

 

And you bet I rage on at extended movies. Cos god damn.

 

 

You have to pay quite a bit more for those triple play versions. Also, I've never seen an "online" component on blu-ray that does anything beyond direct me to a website.

Triple-Play Blu-Rays tend to be the same price as your average Blu-Ray sitting in the £13 range. A fair few do chat, other interactive goodies. I've not messed with them too much, kinda bummed my DKR was too late to do the live watch with Christopher Nolan.

 

That was a hypothetical, tongue in cheek comment.

Does that mean your comment on games publishers getting royalties was also tongue in cheek?

 

Let's get things in perspective here. I work for a publisher. I don't like that when Gamestop post profits that a large chunk of that is from selling games two or more times when I know that my company and others that actually make the content don't see any return on that. I want everyone to play my publishers games and I want them to do so by pre-ordering the stupid, exclusive, premium, uber, [studio Name], special, collectors edition. Buying it new, on day one, and purchasing every single saddle, hat, and map pack we offer up. I want this because it directly impacts my financial situation.

 

On the other hand, I'm a consumer, when I buy retail games I always buy new, that said, I do also trade in my games, when I trade them in it annoys me that I'm being given £10 tops by Game, who will then put it on the shelf for at least £30 (selling them for over £20 is also the reason that I don't buy them used - Used should be half the price of new, not 10% off). I could fix this by selling games on ebay, but I'm too lazy.

 

Finally, I quite like DLC. Most games I play take me a few weeks to complete if not longer what with work commitments and all, but if I really liked it, being able to get another couple of quests for a few quid is, to my mind, a bonus. I honestly think that ME2 and Dragon Age DLC does provide good value for money. The stories are generally well fleshed out and I like that the new characters blend in with the old ones and mesh with the story. If that bonus DLC comes in the form of a code in a box as a reward for buying new, so much the better.

Surely it's a tad hypocritical to hate on used sales, yet supply that market with product as well? And to hate on used sales from Gamestop as a company yet give them store exclusives? (which is of course the bestest thing that consumers love in pre-orders.)

As for the Dragon Age DLC being value for money as I pointed out a few weeks back it was cheaper to buy the Ultimate edition than to buy the never-dropped-in-price DLC. (DLC alone comes to £33 or so). and the Dragon Age DLC meshed in so well Penny Arcade dedicated a strip to it. Sure with both Mass Effect and Dragon Age once you buy the DLC is fits in without much of a hitch. But unless you have it the games like to make nudges that you're missing out. And DLC can be ine, but when it keeps it price even years later then it starts to lose it's edge. (Especially then you do have a GOTY-type edition out too which is a big "Fuck you consumer for buying this game early on instead of holding out 9 months to get all the DLC included")

 

Also I note you skipped over the parts where everyone going new seemingly puts EA in the financial shitter. I had another thought on that too since I remember you going on about Gamestop should reduce used sales in response to EA's Project $10. What exactly is EA's plan once Gamestop actually do that? (If that is indeed the aim) Because you guys will have purposefully created a competing product that is 75% the cost of a new product. Someone goes in store and instead of a $60 new or a $55 used it's a $60 new or a $45 used. That's a decent enough price drop and would surely encourage used sales? Does that mean you'll move on to Project $20, then Project $30 and so on so forth?

[Thursday Next]

Ok, you didn't know how many rooms the normandy had in ME2 until after you bought the game so it's not like you were tricked into buying it because you thought there were 12 party members when there were only 10 on the disc. You said that if you see something on the box (like a car spoiler) then you expect it in the game. I agree. But this extra content wasn't on the box so I don't see what your issue is. Doors or no doors you would know there are two characters that you don't have, so what's the big deal?

 

I always thought Triple Plays were more expensive by a few quid. If you say they aren't I'll take your word for it.

 

I've tried to explain that I've a conflict of interest in the matter. Yes, you can call it hypocritical if you like, but in both scenarios I am anti resellers whether it's because the publisher side of me wants more new purchases or the consumer side of me hates getting ripped off by the reseller.

 

Oh incidentally, none of this should be taken as the opinion of my employer. When I comment here I do so as a private individual not a representative of a business.

 

EDIT: Oh and with regard to the cost to EA for a new person, I conceded that point to Yante. Didn't see the need to do it again. Yes, the cost to the publisher may be lower or higher depending on use of the service.

 

I don't know where it would all end I certainly don't think that any publisher would push the cost of an online pass higher than the wholesale price of the product, but maybe they would?

Edited August 4, 2011 by Thursday Next

[Yantelope]

It might just be an AR thing but having two doors which clearly have a purpose but remain locked bothers me. Maybe it's like if you had bought a car in full and there's an iPod in the glove box. You can buy the iPod from the dealer and they'll give you the key to get it out or you can not pay and it just sits there for 10 years. If I never pay for it then it'd bug the crap out of me knowing that it's there. The analogy breaks down (DLC isn't a physical good like an iPod would be) but you get the gist of it.

 

Another example is the AC2 missing chapters. If you want to add some content that was cut to the game at a later date that's fine by me but don't leave a giant hole in the game that says "CONTENT GOES HERE". It makes you feel ripped off after you've already dropped $60 on a game. I may not be getting ripped off but that's how it makes me feel.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Yantelope

[deanb]

I didn't say I was tricked into buying the game. I said if I saw something on the lego box I'd expect it in the box (legos not really having much else to go on). I don't at all use a games cover for what I expect from a game. (especially as a large amount of my purchases are digital). Is it your personal stance that if the game cover only has Shepard on you'll feel huge amounts of surprise if the game actually comes with more content than just Shepard? It just seems kind of stupid to base an entire games content off what is on the front cover. If the world was to truly work like that we'd have some clusterfucks of covers.

 

However I will base it on what the game alludes to many times, this implication that part of the game is missing. Kinda like Fallout New Vegas making many references to "the burned man" and lo and behold it becoming DLC. I haven't actually finished yet so I assumed I'd meet him some point later in the game with the Ceasers Legion quests. So that kinda sucks too. Another one is, dunno if you've seen the Saints Row Third gameplay trailer but they showed off a few things that later that week were highlighted to be pre-order DLC. That sucks too. And as Yante said the missing chapters on ACII as well.

 

So it's not just EA who fuck up their handling of DLC.

 

Reading your reply to Yante seems to imply option 1: EA are just greedy buggers?

 

Oh another point too. Why if PC has no used market and the servers are provided by the community is BF3 £40 on PC?

[Thursday Next]

It might just be an AR thing but having two doors which clearly have a purpose but remain locked bothers me. Maybe it's like if you had bought a car in full and there's an iPod in the glove box. You can buy the iPod from the dealer and they'll give you the key to get it out or you can not pay and it just sits there for 10 years. If I never pay for it then it'd bug the crap out of me knowing that it's there. The analogy breaks down (DLC isn't a physical good like an iPod would be) but you get the gist of it.

 

Another example is the AC2 missing chapters. If you want to add some content that was cut to the game at a later date that's fine by me but don't leave a giant hole in the game that says "CONTENT GOES HERE". It makes you feel ripped off after you've already dropped $60 on a game. I may not be getting ripped off but that's how it makes me feel.

 

Cars often have blanking plates where Air Con buttons and the like would go. I don't get annoyed when I see them, unless I was told they would work and they don't.

 

P.S. "AR" thing?

 

 

 

 

 

Reading your reply to Yante seems to imply option 1: EA are just greedy buggers?

 

Oh another point too. Why if PC has no used market and the servers are provided by the community is BF3 £40 on PC?

 

Depends on what makes EA greedy vs. trying to turn a profit. I don't think they are greedy. You clearly do. Difference of opinion (and me with a vested interest).

 

To your second point. You think they should charge more?

Edited August 4, 2011 by Thursday Next

[deanb]

No I think they should charge substantially less.

It has been covered before but:

PC has no license fees (which is why 95% of PC titles are £30 to consoles £40)

And on top of this EA/MS/Sony aren't hosting any of the servers and there's no Used costs to recoup meaning it should also get the $10 Online Pass sliced off too.

 

Or is there some other reason that means the PC version costs £40?

 

 

EA are charging several people for a single persons service. I kinda assumed EA would maybe plan on making a profit through selling the game the first time around, not expect to make their profit through Gamestop selling it used. If the used market dried up does that mean EA won't make any profit? Its games are sold at a loss and the profit comes from Online Pass?

[Yantelope]

AR = anal retentive. The blank plates on cars annoy me.

[Thursday Next]

No I think they should charge substantially less.

It has been covered before but:

PC has no license fees (which is why 95% of PC titles are £30 to consoles £40)

And on top of this EA/MS/Sony aren't hosting any of the servers and there's no Used costs to recoup meaning it should also get the $10 Online Pass sliced off too.

 

Or is there some other reason that means the PC version costs £40?

 

 

EA are charging several people for a single persons service. I kinda assumed EA would maybe plan on making a profit through selling the game the first time around, not expect to make their profit through Gamestop selling it used. If the used market dried up does that mean EA won't make any profit? Its games are sold at a loss and the profit comes from Online Pass?

 

It's an expensive game to make. Also, somebody, somewhere probably decided that that's how much people will probably pay for it.

 

As for charging several people for one service, my attitude to that is why should Game get the money for charging twice for the same game when EA could have it instead?

 

If used games stopped tomorrow I'm almost certain that sales of first purchases would go up. It's the whole lost sale thing that is applied to piracy and used game sales. I know it's not 1 used game sale = 1 new game sale. But there are at least some people who would buy new if it wasn't available used. EA clearly do make a profit on first time sales. But if they got a cut of second and third hand sales (which is basically what Online Pass entails) they'd have more profit. More profit = Good.

[Yantelope]

More profit = Good for EA.

 

Fix'd

[Thursday Next]

More profit = Good for EA.

 

Fix'd

 

And good for TN.

[Yantelope]

TN =