It would be interesting if Redbox could convince customers to buy the discs, watch them, then sell them to Redbox (at a discount) and receive redbox credit at any kiosk. Netflix could do the same thing.
I don't know what the going rate is for buying from distributors is but I might be willing to do this. Netflix could just ask customers to include the disc in a mailer and Redbox could have mailers at the kiosk.
I can't say that I believe this is only a move to reduce second hand sales because I think the second hand sellers (Gamestop) are going to have to eat the $10 cost by dropping the price. Second hand sales will still occur they just will not get to make a 400% profit.
If it was a move to kill secondhand sales they would make the online pass cost higher or not offer one at all. That being said they even offer a trail for free.
That being said, your currently monthly fee is for access to maybe Xbox live. It does not include in its cost premium content game manufactures may offer.
Shelf life refers to the length of time they are willing to support a system for game play. In this case, there is the additional "how long do they plan to support online game play" question.
No company is going to keep servers online forever for online game play and these still play without the online pass. Heck, even digital music distributors are realizing the DRM servers are a pain for non subscription services. Apple is the only big one still doing it, I think, and even there you can buy DRM free. If it is a pain for something as simple song licenses it has to be a much bigger pain to maintain a server for the extras of online game play (especially when no new money is coming in).
Regardless, requiring a fee for online game play of a game bought second hand allows them to recoup some of the cost required in extending the life on online game play when that second hand purchase would not give anything to the company originally (but extended game life cost).
I don't care if those dollars can be used elsewhere, those dollars are supposed to be used to support a game I bought legally, whether or not i bought it used or new.
If you bought the game used then none of the money you spent went to support the game.
Developers give everything a shelf life. A game you bought in 1991 is not going to work on systems today. My father complains about this a lot. He hates today's games and his old computer (that will play the game) barely works. He thinks his new computer should be able to play his old game.
So, are you saying that if I buy the game new on day 1, it should work for me 6 years later, but it shouldn't work for people who bought it used?
Yes, that is what I am saying because buying used adds no income to the people supporting the online pass system. If the online pass required no maintenance from EA then I would feel differently.
Refer to my club analogy.
Club X is built. Memberships are valid for a lifetime. Investors expect that these fees accumulated by members will pay for upkeep. New members use resource more often the older members. As member interest wains, Club X benefits.
If Club X allowed for members to sell the membership then Club X will have a group of members that have not contributed anything to the maintenance of the building. They are only there because they got a good deal when a previous member moved or got bored. So now the new member has extended the life of a membership ruining the anticipated ROI to the company.
If we extend this out and allow for the possibility that eventually everyone will simply transfer their membership to recoup their cost then Club X will cease to be. No new income means that they will operate in the red and go under.
I see the online pass as a lifetime (of the game) membership to the a privileged area that new buyers get free with the game and used buyer must pay extra for. What club would allow the free transfer of a lifetime membership to someone else when a member gets tired of the club?
Regardless, why should EA or anyone shell out more support costs, hardware costs, etc. for a person who buys the game 6 years after it came out (that would be me btw)? Even if it is negligible, those are dollars that could be used elsewhere rather than on someone who gave no money back to EA.
To address others complaining of borrower/renters getting access, EA does allow a 7 day trial for each game prior to purchase.
Games/Software have an expected shelf life on which companies anticipate an ROI. If people don't like the terms vote with your wallet.
I use netflix watch now heavily.
Typically, a one hour show daily and one or two movies on the weekend. Very good quality video.
I also have 1 child that is a big myspace & youtube watcher (but that amount is negligible.
I use about 12gb a week and watch roughly 7-8 hour of tv over the internet.
If I get rid of cable my wife will watch QVC over the internet and who know how much bandwidth that will eat.
At first, I found it annoying. My step daughter thought it lame. However, I like using OpenPandora which avoids me from having to the load the pandora page and keep my browser open. If by streaming in ads it allows me to continue with openpandora without feeling guilting for not watching ads, then go for it. Very shorts adds not very frequent, though.
I agree with the few other people on here. This case is not frivolous.
Someone lost or damaged an item they were responsible for and the owner is wanting reimbursement.
If you loan a $300-$500 miter saw to someone and they return it with the motor burned out after using all day non stop and they refused to compensate your loss you would sue as well. If you loaned it to them and someone broke into their garage and stole it and they refused to compensate you would sure again.
The differences here is it is kids and it is an item that is being referred to as a toy. I don't even see how it being at school is an issue to th e owner, she did bring it to school the person she loaned it to did.
What upsets me is how stupid the loaners parents are.