I was catching up on my gaming news this morning when I learned that EA (Electronic Arts) has decided to do away with their online pass program. Apparently the damage to their reputation was costing them more than they were making. I was working at Blockbuster when they announced the program and I saw gamers reactions up close. None of it was positive.
A few years later, EA finally seems to have read the writing on the wall….. Not to mention the profanity and occasional threats on the forums. I understand why they did it in the first place. The used and rental markets were eating up huge amounts of bandwidth on their servers without generating any revenue for them. To reduce the overload, they introduced the online pass. It was included free with new games, and allowed access to the online portion of the game on the account that registered it.
This of course meant that if you bought used, rented or borrowed from a buddy, you couldn’t play online unless you bought an online pass for an extra $10. While this reduced the less on EAs servers, it also alienated a huge number of gamers who saw it as nothing more than a naked cash grab. Used game resellers were forced to lower the prices on their EA titles to offset the cost of the pass and so lower their margins. Long story short, nobody but EA really liked the program. Its not actually over-stating things to say it was pretty much universally hated. To their credit, EA has finally listened.
This proves two things. EA isn’t just a giant, greedy corporation. They can and do, listen to their customers. They do understand that gamers are the people paying their bills. They also understand that sometimes the extra revenue just isn’t worth the hit to their image. Secondly, if you aren’t happy with how a company is treating you, nothing gets their attention like voting with your wallet. If enough people do it, even an industry giant like EA is going to notice.
I admire any company that’s willing to admit they made a bad call. Even more so when they decide to un-make it. Not only are they not requiring online passes in new games, they’re phasing them out on existing titles as well. That’s being a responsive company. It will take a while to undo the damage to their corporate image, but at least its a start.
Well done EA.
Cheers, Winston
Brain Bits To Go 
It wasn’t clear from your article, but I got the impression the $10.00 is a one time, and not monthly fee? Basically it would be a transfer of license fee?
The actual fact is, someone who buys a second hand game, is NOT a customer. You aren’t a customer until you spend $$$ there, and until then, the company doesn’t owe you a damn thing.
You know a lot about IT, and understand the idea that systems need to be continually maintained and upgraded to keep up with consumer demand, technology and to simply combat degradation of components. You also understand that in order to ensure a continual revenue stream, and to avoid losing customers due to outgrowing a product, you have to be continually developing and refining that product.
Blizzard is a prime example of that, with World of Warcraft.
So why is it perceived as evil, for a company to expect some compensation from non-paying customers? Especially when that $$$ is going towards ENHANCING your experience.
Just because you go to an all you can eat buffet, it doesn’t give me the expectation that I can buy your “spot” for $10.00, when you are done, and eat free all night.
EA may rescind their policy, but I can guarantee that the game experience will suffer, and product lifespans will be considerably shortened.
You are 100% correct…people who have a problem with the system should take their dollars elsewhere, but if I understand your article correctly, the people who have “voted with their dollars” have already bought the game. The folks who didn’t buy the game…they haven’t gotten off the couch in order to get to the polls.
Sorry, I should have been clearer… it is a one time fee. A for the question of life cycles, they started it on their sports titles which are annual releases. There is no additional content during the year so its not the sameas the WoW model which provides regular updates for your subscription fee. Under the EA model you are paying just to access their servers.
The issues of quality and sustainability would only come into play if all the other triple A companies had followed suit. They didn’t and yet still managed to put out high quality online experiences open to both the new and used markets.
As for people who didn’t by them “not getting off their couches to vote”, they did the exact opposite. They voted by buying games that didn’t have online passes. That’s a true market economy at work. EA recognized that and changed their business to adapt to their customers.
“They voted by buying games that didn’t have online passes. That’s a true market economy at work.”
How does that punish EA? People bought second hand games to use the online systems of games that don’t require a pass, thus slogging down the competitor who now has to maintain an infrastructure that they aren’t getting paid for. EA might be losing users, but they aren’t losing customers (based on the FACT that if you are buying the game from a second hand source, you aren’t a customer of EA).
Hey, don’t get me wrong…I KNOW you are sitting there thinking “hmm…Greg never had an issue about not paying for software before”. And I’d be lying if I tried to say that free software still isn’t my first choice (ie. free downloads, not pirated).
Our end result on this issue is pretty much the same…if you don’t like to pay, then take your business elsewhere…It’s the vehicle that we use to get to that conclusion which differs. Your article comes off as though a person has a right to EA’s intellectual and physical property (their gaming infrastructure), which they don’t, if they didn’t pay the price of admission. Even then, by playing the game, they agree to EA’s terms and conditions. I argue that they don’t have any rights in this case, unless EA breaks their side of the contract.
Ultimately, EA did the SMART thing…and it was the RIGHT choice…but it wasn’t the “right” thing. They don’t owe non paying customers anything. The reason it was the right choice, is that those customers may decide to purchase EA products in the future, because they changed their policy. I think that’s the perspective you are coming from.
Anyways, I bought Sally a WII for her birthday, and we’ve been playing it almost every night we are not off doing our own things. Love it. I want to get a PlayStation, but am holding off.
Love you bro!
To me, it’s not about gamers having the right to access EAs servers or otherwise. It’s all about EA changing the rules, and gamers expressing their displeasure. EAs decision isn’t about right or wrong in the moral sense. It’s purely about what is in the best interests of the company.
Corporations don’t make “moral” decisions because morality is a function of humanity and corporations aren’t humans. Corporate ideas of right and wrong revolve around the good of the corporation. Moral questions of right and wrong tend to involve the greater good.
Nike would be an excellent example. From a corporate perspective, using child labor to make their products in overseas sweatshops is very good for profitability. From a moral standpoint, it is a vile practice which is wrong on every level.
It’s always nice when the right corporate decision happens to line with moral right. I just don’t see morality as the primary driver in corporate processes.
Either way, I’m glad EA has made the decision they have.
Love you too brother 🙂