Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

EA to charge extra for used games


TerriblePizza

Recommended Posts

I bought my last copy of madden 2 years ago. Same game every year. I'll just play 2k4 till I die thanks. That's ridiculous of EA to charge for multiplayer. The only time a game should cost extra for multiplayer is if the company will need the money for server upkeep, like many MMORPGs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DLC is killing games. Pay 60 bucks for a game, then they want you to pay 10-15 bucks MORE for stuff that should have been included.

Yeah. Microsoft encourages it as well. DVD9...lol

But not everyone is charging for it. DLC is fine when free, but to charge.. is ridiculous. But gamers support it when they buy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. Microsoft encourages it as well. DVD9...lol

But not everyone is charging for it. DLC is fine when free, but to charge.. is ridiculous. But gamers support it when they buy it.

Microsoft doesn't encourage DLC because of DVD9.

Most video in current-gen games is uncompressed and there is untold amounts of duplicate data to help reduce load times.

A current gen game that is 6-7 GB may only have about 2-3 GB worth of information.

Don't fall for Sony's hype about blu-ray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Developers are getting tired of Gamestop taking a big chunk of their revenue.

how?? The developers got their money for the game already when it was bought the first time. If the consumer decides to sell it, that's their business. EA found a new cow to milk. Nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hidden

how?? The developers got their money for the game already when it was bought the first time. If the consumer decides to sell it, that's their business. EA found a new cow to milk. Nothing more.

So.. if me and a few friends want to go buy some games we haven't yet played, then go to the used section at Gamestop and buy them.

Where does that money go to?

Link to comment

Don't fall for Sony's hype about blu-ray.

Then why was the 360 version of Final Fantasy 13 on 3 disc? So you think 7 gigs of disc space is fine? And Microsoft did cut corners all around the 360 when making it. So I do believe MS does encourage DLC with DVD9

I honestly see nothing positive about DVD9.

"Don't fall for Sony's hype about blu-ray." Yeah and tell that to their developers...

how?? The developers got their money for the game already when it was bought the first time. If the consumer decides to sell it, that's their business. EA found a new cow to milk. Nothing more.

So.. if me and a few friends want to go buy some games we haven't yet played, then go to the used section at Gamestop and buy them.

Where does that money go to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So.. if me and a few friends want to go buy some games we haven't yet played, then go to the used section at Gamestop and buy them.

Where does that money go to?

It goes to Gamestop. I wasn't trying to say otherwise. My point is that once the game was bought at full price from Wally World or Worst Buy, it became the property of the buyer. Also, once he trades it in at Gamestop, he isn't going to play it anymore.

If you buy a car from Bob's Car Lot and sell it a year later, does Bob come after the new owner of the car for more money so he can have the keys to drive it???

This is money grab on the part of EA. Maybe they should try to make more games like BC2 that people won't be looking to get rid of a week after they buy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • lol, that second part is quite literally one of the dumbest things ever. Having or not having guaranteed contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how much these billionaires have to pay.  Because there is a hard cap and a minimum cap spend requirement, and teams either use their cap or roll it over to use it all the next year, so the owners have to pay the same amount of money in the end no matter what. Having fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL would only hurt salary cap management, and thus would end up screwing over the team and its fan base when teams kiss on signings as they take up cap room that is needed to improve the roster. Look at the Browns with Watson, they gave him the fully guaranteed deal and all it’s doing is sucking up massive cap space now.  If they hadn’t done that, the owner would still be paying the same amount of money each year as that cap space would still be used elsewhere. If you want to argue for fully guaranteed contracts because the players deserve it, that’s an entirely different argument and a fair one to discuss.  But anyone against fully guaranteed deals isn’t doing it to argue for the billionaire owners.
    • Start posting in threads in the other forums instead of just creating threads. No one comes over here so you aren't starting conversations.  Get your ass up to 100 posts. It's not that hard. Don't create 100 posts. Contribute to conversations. 
    • Ryabkin could be the steal of the draft, he was a Top 10 pick heading into last season and had a rough year.  Lots of GMs passed on him because of that and his workouts. Pick has really high upside and Svech should be able to translate Rod tearing his arse a new one for making dumb plays since Svech has had several years of it.  🤣😂
×
×
  • Create New...