By Lorin Baumgarten

Well, this marks the first time in my short EBA history that I am doing a Part II for Gaming Matters. Usually I try to change it up for you to keep it fresh. No need to beat a dead horse (yes, I have been playing Red Dead Redemption). It certainly wasn’t my intention to revisit this topic, but after listening to this week’s episode of EpicBattleCry, I feel as though I have to. It is just that important. The implications of this subject are far reaching and very serious. So I’m going to pick on a couple of comments from the podcast, not because of any love lost for the boys, but because they are comments that are being made by the gaming populace at large. Although it is not necessary, I would recommend reading Part I of this story. If you are not familiar with EA Sports’ new Online Pass, you should definitely read it. Then, read on and let’s Hack this to bits once and for all!!

So to start off with, I would like to talk about the idea that what the EA Online Pass does is basically the same as the DLC model that includes content for those who buy the game new, like the one used in Mass Effect 2. I couldn’t disagree with this philosophy more. I played Mass Effect 2, without all of the DLC, and I feel whole-heatedly that I had a complete gaming experience. I played for over 25 hours and I enjoyed a fully fleshed out story and gaming experience. The exact same experience anybody who buys the game, new or used, will have. I defy anyone to make the same comment about the games effected by the EA Online Pass. Unlike games that offer DLC post launch, EA has actually removed a significant part of the game, dramatically manipulating the players experience. It is unfair to say that the Zaeed mission or the Normandy SR-1 Crash Site mission have the same relationship to Mass Effect 2 that Franchise Mode and Online Multiplayer have to the Madden franchise. Likewise for Alan Wake or Heavy Rain, two other game’s that offered free DLC for people who purchased the game new. The inclusion or exclusion of the DLC in the player’s experience, in both cases, does not alter it, it augments it. The sports games involved in the Online Pass actually lose something – and something very significant at that. So, no, the DLC model and the Online Pass are not the same thing at all.

The next concept put forth on EpicBattleCry this week is that the EA Online Pass will simply drive down prices of used games at GameStop and, therefore, it won’t cost the consumer any more money. This may be true, but what this argument doesn’t consider is that, if that is the case, it will then just simply drive down buy-back prices. You can be sure that GameStop is not going to simply say, “Oh well, guess we’ll just have to suck it up on this one.” Nope. What they will do is just lower what they will pay you for your game when they buy it. So, effectively, this does not benefit the consumer at all. It only benefits EA. Additionally, GameStop is not the only place people get used games. There’s Craigslist, Ebay, Goozex, rentals, and gifts too (just to name a few). These places will all be effected by this as well. The bottom line is (or at least, always has been) that when you purchase a game from EA, it comes with ‘X’ amount of years of online service. That service comes with the game, not the owner. That is the way it has been in the past. EA is looking to change that.

So here is what happens if EA shows the world that consumers will allow producers to take features that have always been considered part of their product away and then attach their ownership to a person instead: Anything that can be attached to the internet in any part of its use or sale, will now be able to do what EA is proposing. That means that CD’s and DVD’s, which must be played in a player that ultimately can require an internet connection and will therefore be trackable to a specific person, could require you pay the publisher every time you sell them. No more giving your friend a CD or selling your movies on Craigslist (this example, of course, assumes municipal Wi-fi – which is coming). Cars, which require title transfers, can be tracked when ownership changes hands and therefore car manufacturers could require you to pay them when you sell it. Homes, which also require title transfers, can also have their sales tracked and could require you to pay construction companies or developers every time the home changes hands for its entire life (which is exactly what EA is proposing). Cell phones, which require contracts and have unique ID’s, computers, boats, firearms – the list is endless. Anything that requires a title, permit, registration, license, or is connected to the internet can have the transfer of its ownership tracked and then can charge you to keep features that came with it initially. Think about it.

Everyone knows that EA is doing this to get a piece of the used gaming market. It is a reality that they deny, but the denials make it no less obvious or real. And it is a market they have no inherent right to, despite those who would have you think otherwise. If they want a piece of the used games market they should do what everyone else does when they want to challenge another entity for a piece of their pie, open up a competing endeavor. If you want a piece of the used gaming market, then open up an EA Used Game Store and beat the competition’s pricing and service. It is that simple. Don’t hack a piece of your product away and then find a way to resell it back to the consumer because you can’t be bothered with opening your own store! It is a concept that my-name-is-nobody scribed in his/her Member Battle Cry this week, and it is exactly what these companies should do instead of dissecting your games! I have no doubt that both EA and Activision have enough titles to support a small brick-and-mortar store where people could trade in their games. Or, as “nobody” suggested, make it an online endeavor. I am sure that EA could offer competitive pricing and even throw in some unique services or content as a bonus to go with your used game purchase.

I don’t want to drag this on all day, though I could. The depths to which the EA Online Pass is greedy, lazy, and just plain wrong are astounding. In all likelihood you either agree or disagree already. But I urge you to really think about the long-term implications of this model. This type of “used-sale surcharge” is an unprecedented phenomenon that could rip the pricing structure of gaming wide open, and will have far-reaching effects well beyond our chosen entertainment medium. And again, I remind you, speak out about this if it concerns you. Write about here, or anywhere you can. If enough people yell, people will listen. But most importantly, speak with your wallet! If EA sees a dramatic drop in sales and play time online, they will listen. Use the power you have as a consumer, it is stronger than you think!