I already pay for Xbox Live, I don't want to pay again to be able to use Live with any one specific game if I buy that game used. That said, I don't think yearly iterations of EA Sports games are worth full retail price, so I will continue to buy them used/discounted and I will just neglect the online portion of it.

I much prefer the method of rewarding a consumer that buys a game new; such as the free DLC packaged in with new copies of Dragon Age. This way you're not taking anything away from someone buying pre-owned but you're adding an incentive to buy new.

I think that this makes sense for sports games. I'm somebody who can't afford more than a couple of new games per year or so, so I live off the used games rack (and steam sales, but that's a different story). If you browse through those games, there are a number which aren't that old that go for under ten dollars, because they come out every year. I know what I'm saying inspires a "duh", but still. If there is a group of people who truly want to play NHL 10 until they shut down the servers, they'd probably be willing to pay for it. I'd say the majority of people who buy sports games to play online probably buy yearly. I don't know this for sure, but I think it's true. I think it's less fair for games that aren't as frequent, something as popular as MW2 comes to mind, but in reality game companies are just that - companies. They need to make profits, and people have jobs there, this isn't the worst thing. As long as I can buy used single-player games (and with the ability to play local online) then I think it's fine. Just my opinion though. 

I've been increasingly leaning towards used game purchases; especially after purchasing several new games during the fourth quarter of 2009 and never really getting a chance to play them before they were reduced in price or became available Used for much less. Although, I am not completely comfortable buying games used. Very little of the purchase price of a used game (if any money at all) ever goes to the people who actually created the game. It leaves me terribly conflicted. But, I also find myself playing many more games. Ideally, for me, games should be cheaper. I, for one, would spend more money on games if they were. $65 is just too big a decision for what may very well be a never-play-again title. Hell, $40 is pushing it. If all games were $30 or less, I wouldn't even consider a used copy. It wouldn't be worth screwing the developer out of the money. At $30 or less I'd buy at least 10 games a year; equalling roughly $350 a year. As it stands, I only buy about two or three new games a year; equalling $130 to $195. The industry as a whole would make more money from me if games were cheaper. Music CD's are almost dead. Everyone rips, burns, or downloads (few realize that the quality is greatly diminished). Not I. They're too cheap to bother. Most CD's are about $10. If you can't pay $10 for something you like, you must be wasting a lot of time on stuff you don't really like. Anyways, besides lowering the price of games, EA's new system seems like a good idea. In my opinion, more DLC is another. Ship a small feature set, charge less.If you want online, pay extra. If you want capture the flag, pay extra. If you want co-op, pay extra. If you want extra weapons, pay extra. Etc., etc. It would require some balancing as to not over-gouge the consumer, but it would work for me. Don't want campaign, buy the multiplayer only for less. In fact, I think developers could end up making more money this way. Low entry fee attracts more people. They grow to like the game and want more, they can. For a small fee. Choice. People love choice. I would like choice.  

I agree with the idea, but $10 is pretty steep. $5 is my threshold for something like this.

" I play NHL online. Someone just lost a sale. Way to lose a fan who's been buying the franchise since 99, EA.  Good job. "

Seems fine to me. Good on them. It may well be a slippery slope, but as long as it doesn't get too extreme, I don't see any issue with it.

95% of the games i buy are new... the other 5% are usually a few years old, so this doesn't affect me at all.

Welcome to the early 90's. It's only a matter of time until all console games come with a CD key like PC games have had for years. It's going to be funny seeing all the console fanboys that go out of their way to insult PC gaming screaming about this "injustice" when CD keys become common place on consoles.
 
As far as the studio are concerned, buying a game used is the exact same as pirating it. Both ways they don't see a penny of the profits.

" @Cube said:

" I play NHL online. Someone just lost a sale. Way to lose a fan who's been buying the franchise since 99, EA.  Good job. "

Well if you aren't buying it brand new it's no loss to them.  "

I haven't minded EA's and other companies decisions for things like this in the past, I think including something for people who buy it new is a great way to combat the used games market for the publishers. But taking away the entire online component? That's going a bit too far in my opinion.  

" @Daryl said:

" @Cube said:

" I play NHL online. Someone just lost a sale. Way to lose a fan who's been buying the franchise since 99, EA.  Good job. "

Well if you aren't buying it brand new it's no loss to them.  "

I don't buy used games, thanks. "

Personally, I don't play sports games online, so if it makes the used copies that much cheaper, awesome.  At the same time, ERTS can take their access codes and shove them up their collective ass for all I care.

I don't buy used games or EA sports titles, so I personally don't have much issue here, but whenever I read an article like this it's difficult for me not to consider it as just another shady underhanded money grab by a greedy company.  On the other hand, I suppose if you're the kind of person who spends $60 on the same game year after year, then another $10 here and there won't faze you.

" @Cube said:

" @Daryl said:

" @Cube said:

" I play NHL online. Someone just lost a sale. Way to lose a fan who's been buying the franchise since 99, EA.  Good job. "

Well if you aren't buying it brand new it's no loss to them.  "

I don't buy used games, thanks. "

This shouldn't affect you if you buy the game new. "

The way I think of it is: 

" @PandaShake said:

" @Cube said:

" @Daryl said:

" @Cube said:

" I play NHL online. Someone just lost a sale. Way to lose a fan who's been buying the franchise since 99, EA.  Good job. "

Well if you aren't buying it brand new it's no loss to them.  "

I don't buy used games, thanks. "

This shouldn't affect you if you buy the game new. "

Except it does, because I have 2 PS3's with 2 people who play the game.  Now one person has to pay to play 1 game online.  Never. "

" @PandaShake said:

" @Cube said:

" @Daryl said:

" @Cube said:

" I play NHL online. Someone just lost a sale. Way to lose a fan who's been buying the franchise since 99, EA.  Good job. "

Well if you aren't buying it brand new it's no loss to them.  "

I don't buy used games, thanks. "

This shouldn't affect you if you buy the game new. "

Except it does, because I have 2 PS3's with 2 people who play the game.  Now one person has to pay to play 1 game online.  Never. "

To everyone saying "I'm okay with this", or "This doesn't affect me", I'm sure it doesn't right now.  But if you people fall for this then for SURE it will leak over into single-player gaming.  Just wait until your grandson or granddaughter wants to revisit the classics and check out Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11, but when it doesn't work you have to sit them on your knee and explain, "Well, Electronic Arts was a company who was once profitable and well-regarded in the gaming industry, but as time went on they decided to start making bricks."

" @Cube said:

" @PandaShake said:

" @Cube said:

" @Daryl said:

" @Cube said:

" I play NHL online. Someone just lost a sale. Way to lose a fan who's been buying the franchise since 99, EA.  Good job. "

Well if you aren't buying it brand new it's no loss to them.  "

I don't buy used games, thanks. "

This shouldn't affect you if you buy the game new. "

Except it does, because I have 2 PS3's with 2 people who play the game.  Now one person has to pay to play 1 game online.  Never. "

Hadn't thought about it like that. If I were in a house with multiple users, would this code only unlock online play for one person or for the entire console? That's messed up if it's the former. "

Then could I maybe pay less to get a copy of halo reach sans multiplayer component?

I respect EA's right to design and protect their products as they deem fit. Being primarily a PC gamer, this doesn't affect me to my knowledge. Sucks for those who got used to buying used games and expecting it to be the same as a new copy.

You kinda know what you're letting yourself in for with PC games, because they slap a EULA in your face saying you can't resell the license and so on, and to install the software you have to agree to the EULA.
 
I'm curious to see how they handle it on console, because unless they also have the player agree to a EULA before they first play the game (and thus become the End User), aren't they basically riding roughshod over First-Sale Doctrine without so much as a by-your-leave?  Bioware have been handling it by making it pretty clear that that stuff is not a part of the game proper, and is DLC bonus content that you happen to get a code for with each copy of the game (and I want to say that stuff wasn't on the disc?).  That seems trickier in this instance, because online play is quite clearly going to be billed as part of the game itself - in which case I would have thought a EULA agreement would be required from the player in order for EA to withold their FSD rights (in that they are preventing you from selling a part of the game you bought).
 
Whatever, as long as they make it crystal clear I think it's fair enough.  However, console gamers should realize that they are now being asked to buy games worth less money (because they have less/no trade-in value) for exactly the same price as before.  
 
Aren't we also rapidly losing one of the big benefits of consoles, which is that they're supposed to be 100% hassle free, insert-game-and-go platforms?  Now it's all codes and patches and installs - the only thing left is to ask for your soundcard settings and we're back to square one. 

First I was all "WHAAAT?". Then I was all "Oh OK, that's why they're doing it". But then I was all "STILL, DUDE WHAAT? LAME.". 
 
These random thoughts were brought to you be readers like you. 

I've been increasingly leaning towards used game purchases; especially after purchasing several new games during the fourth quarter of 2009 and never really getting a chance to play them before they were reduced in price or became available Used for much less. Although, I am not completely comfortable buying games used. Very little of the purchase price of a used game (if any money at all) ever goes to the people who actually created the game. It leaves me terribly conflicted. But, I also find myself playing many more games. Ideally, for me, games should be cheaper. I, for one, would spend more money on games if they were. $65 is just too big a decision for what may very well be a never-play-again title. Hell, $40 is pushing it. If all games were $30 or less, I wouldn't even consider a used copy. It wouldn't be worth screwing the developer out of the money. At $30 or less I'd buy at least 10 games a year; equalling roughly $350 a year. As it stands, I only buy about two or three new games a year; equalling $130 to $195. The industry as a whole would make more money from me if games were cheaper. Music CD's are almost dead. Everyone rips, burns, or downloads (few realize that the quality is greatly diminished). Not I. They're too cheap to bother. Most CD's are about $10. If you can't pay $10 for something you like, you must be wasting a lot of time on stuff you don't really like. Anyways, besides lowering the price of games, EA's new system seems like a good idea. In my opinion, more DLC is another. Ship a small feature set, charge less.If you want online, pay extra. If you want capture the flag, pay extra. If you want co-op, pay extra. If you want extra weapons, pay extra. Etc., etc. It would require some balancing as to not over-gouge the consumer, but it would work for me. Don't want campaign, buy the multiplayer only for less. In fact, I think developers could end up making more money this way. Low entry fee attracts more people. They grow to like the game and want more, they can. For a small fee. Choice. People love choice. I would like choice.     

I didn't mind with DA or ME2. This doesn't bother me at either. People on the internet - Gamers, Nerds, Dorks, Hackers, Techies etc etc really seem to have a problem with that if you make something you should paid your fair share for it, and are ALWAYS moaning about not being GIVEN things for free.
 
It may be a slippery slope but you really do have to think of it from the Game Developer's point of view - if a new copy of your game is sitting next to a cheaper copy of your game (it's only 5 bucks or so, but that's enough to cover the tax) you need to do something to make your new copy stand out so you get some money from it. Both of my parents are entertainers - granted not famous ones but non the less piracy is an issue that hits close to home: Why shouldn't artists (what ever their art may be) be entitled to payment for their work?  If you pay for a full game and still get a full game do you have any right to bitch about DLC pricing? (Seriously, you don't. Now please fuck off).  I'm not saying it's ok to gouge the consumer but at the same time these businesses are not in business to make you happy or make the games you want, they're in it for the same reason as any other business is: to make money.

" I don't buy used games or EA sports titles, so I personally don't have much issue here, but whenever I read an article like this it's difficult for me not to consider it as just another shady underhanded money grab by a greedy company.  On the other hand, I suppose if you're the kind of person who spends $60 on the same game year after year, then another $10 here and there won't faze you. "

Just more reason to not support this dying company.
 
Gaming would be so much better without Activision or EA.

fuck that. to think EA almost convinced me to start gettin their games again. this wont stop at sports. take you online pass and pound it up your ass

so you can't even lend games anymore? wow, EA never ceased to amaze me with their greed

Easy solution. Don't buy any EA games!

I suppose at least they're tying the code to your Gamertag and not your console, which would of been a lot worst.

I'm just fine with console games having cd keys like PC games have had for decades. Except it's more open than most modern PC games.

Not a big deal to me.
 
I don't buy used games.
I RARELY sell my games.
And I don't buy sports games. 
 
I do dig bonus content. Kinda not a fan of taking away features but it never effects me.

That's cool. I don't buy used games anyways.

 Maybe the developers shouldn't develop game-altering content (unique weapons, armor etc) exclusively for GameStop. Preorders are nice for both developers and sellers; however, encouraging people to shop at GameStop seems to be killing their own agenda as GameStop make the majority of their profit off of the used game business.   

Alternatively, as people fight for games to be art, limiting the content doesn’t help their cause. If you buy a used DVD you still get to see the ending.  Buying a used CD and you still get all of the tracks. Buy a book and you’re not missing pages. When you buy other used entertainment mediums the content is all there, you don’t pay extra.

I don't mind the idea of limiting some extra content unless you pay for the service for a second hand copy. But I think it should have some sort of notice on the game about it to inform potential second hand buyers . Considering in my experience most games resellers sell the game for $5 dollars less than a new copy , I think they would have to take the hit on the resale . It would also mean you would take a bit of a hit on trading it. But the idea of locking it to one person would be insane unless the prices of new games drops . If i buy a television, I can sell it if i want to get a new one . I can sell anything I dont want any more . I dont see why games should be that special thing that you cant . that would just make them disposable pieces of plastic.

I don't care on a personal level because I only buy used when it's the only option, but it sucks for people who do buy used.  I don't blame EA though, used sales suck for publishers.

Considering the used game market on sports game is only really applied to the current years releases it's not a too big deal. I can understand someone looking to get a smaller print sport game like NHL being irritated by getting a used one at gamestop because it's sold out everywhere else but just remember how many sports games are piled up in every used game store you've ever gone to. Not many people buy a ton of used sports games to begin with.

I love EA's project 10 dollars. They're simply trying to stop people from buying a used copy at gamestop for $5 less than the new copy that gets EA paid. It's a brilliant way to make GameStop's newer used games cost $65 instead of $55.

I really don't see the point EA is trying to make with this. They are actually removing content, even if it is new or used or rented, from their games. The thing is, and this is as an owner of a videogame store, EA makes deals with Gamestop to trade in games to buy their game. So EA wants you to trade in games to buy their game... they just don't want you to buy those games. If anything, this will just reduce trade in prices and used prices by $10. Once that becomes the standard what will they do?

Hey, they are a company. In the end, they are in business to make money. They don't make any money off of used games sales, so whether people like it or not, it's something they have to do so they don't lose money.

As long as it doesn't affect Skate, I'm good.

My thoughts are this: Jerk move for 360 owners since they pay for online already, probably fair enough for PS3 owners who don't pay so EA fronts the cost of server maintenance. Now I think about it though EA probably pays for the 360 servers as well....

FUCK THIS. Seriously. Fuck this. I don't give a shit about sport games or whatever but this is bullcrap. They make so much money from making these yearly sequels and they whine about a used market? 
 
Seriously? Every other market works fine with used sales. Cars, books, movies, etc. I'm tired of game companies seriously bitching about it. Get over it. It's a product we own, we're allowed to sell it and we're also allowed to buy it used. And we should be able to buy it without being punished for it. Want us to buy your NEW copy? Make the game cheaper than what it was used. That's it. Otherwise, shove it.