Quote:
Originally Posted by
Captain Maxx Power
The whole point of commerce is that the value of items goes up or down depending on the worth and age of a product. By tacking on the DRM EA can artificially inflate the price of the game almost indefinitely.
And if people continue to want to play it so much that they save up that amount so they can buy it, so be it. If you don't think something is worth the price attached to it you just don't buy it. It's pretty straight-forward, really.
Quote:
Also you have to keep in mind that not everyone is as privaleged as you to be able to pay full price for games.
And for a long time, I couldn't either. Now I can. I worked hard to get there. I'm sure it would be all lovely and super if everything was cheap, but the fact is that's not the way things work. I am not privileged enough to be able to buy an HDTV right now, but that doesn't mean I will get all moody because the price is so high for something like that. If I don't feel it's worth saving up for then I won't save up for it. If I can't afford it at all, even if saving for a year, then I simply can't afford it and that's that. Tough. I deal with it.
Quote:
I myself haven't bought a game that's been priced over ten quid in the past few years simply because I can't afford to spend anymore. But I still like to play games and new games (I'm presently doing a degree in them). Everyone should have a right to the trade worth of a product, not have it perpetually artificially inflated.
But it's not artificially inflated or anything like that. They simply forced out the second-hand business. I for one don't see this as such a big deal. Maybe I am paying for the 'rental' of three installs, but I also don't see this as such a big deal. Again, it's just a case of whether or not you think the money is worth what you get for it. I still think it's worth it. If they did this with a game I didn't want to play as much, I might not buy it for such reasons. If I re-installed games regularly then I wouldn't pay the amount. So you're paying for a "rental". Big whoop. Either you think it's worth it, or you don't. If EA are making more money by using this process then there is no reason for them to stop using it. If my money helps them not want to change, so be it. I just got a game and I could care less about the 'problems' associated with it, as I still think it's worth £27.
Quote:
You also don't seem to be thinking in the long run. Just recently I have started re-playing a lot of my older games that I've had for a number of years. How pissed off would I have been if I'd have gone to install these games which I paid for legitimately and found out that I couldn't play them any more?
I don't know. How pissed off would you be? As for myself, I wouldn't be that pissed off. I'd have known that this was going to happen eventually and would shrug and carry on with life.
Quote:
EA don't develop games, they publish them. If you really wanted to help out you'd give your money straight to the development houses. A lot of the money you're giving them in an attempt to help out is only going to line the pockets of someone not even remotely involved in the production of games.
Complain to Maxis about this, not EA. Maxis, as a seperate company from EA (as you point out) have every right to opt for a different publisher, but they don't. So basically even if you gave the developers a nice donation or something, that money is still going towards people who promote EA.
Quote:
Plus the main reason why Spore came as far as it did was due to the involvement of Will Wright, a man who has a proven track record of producing high-selling games (Sim series primarily). I'd doubt EA would invest heavily in a notably different game simply because they thought it would be innovative. Like every other company they're out to make money, and the vast majority of the time they'll just go with what works and sells. That's why they have such a huge thumb in the Sport games pie, because these games regularly sell like clockwork every year.
Will Wright worked for a company that endorsed EA in some way, and therefore he is just as much at fault as anyone.
Quote:
Take it from someone who knows; EA is not a very nice organisation. They have a track record being as greedy as you can get, aggressively driving their competitors out-of-business and essentially wanting to make a monopoly on games publishing.
I imagine the developer does have some say in who publishes their games, given they are making them. It would be kind of silly to think that EA are actually getting whatever they want - they only get the developers who choose EA. And therefore they are just as 'evil', surely?
Quote:
It heartens me that their present plans of absorbing every development house going hasn't worked out, because I'd rather not have a single giant entity with full control over not only the games we play but also have the ability to observe and track us in order to make even more cash. It's all extremely sinister and morally objectionable, which is what we're all trying to explain to you.
It's not. It really isn't. The developers choose to go to EA. There will never be a monopoly as long as there is a choice - and there is.