NBA Live 11 "DNA Code" to include Online play

http://www.easports.com/onlinepass

In the past few years, the unique DNA code allowed you to receive roster updates daily and even updates the year after (Live 09 is still getting Live 10 updates). But, it looks like they are going for force you to either have a code, or pay at least 10 bucks to activate all of the online features, not just DNA updates, for "11".


This is all coming around due to the first game of the "11" season being released soon, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11.

Article on Kotaku

http://kotaku.com/5535577/eas-fight-aga ... iger-woods

Publisher EA is extending its "Project Ten Dollar" scheme to make buying used copies of EA Sports games a bad idea. Don't expect to play your EA Sports games online without the "Online Pass" included in new copies.

What is Online Pass? It's a game-specific, single-use registration code included in new copies—and in new copies only—of games like the upcoming Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11 that will grant Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 owners access to online content—"online services, features and bonus content" according to EA.

Yes, that does include head-to-head and multiplayer online gameplay modes. Online Pass also grants access to online leagues, roster and playbook updates, user-created content downloads and tournament features. More details on that sweeping change at EA Sports' official site.

Those who purchase Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11 used can purchase an Online Pass for $10 USD. EA is also offering a "free 7-day trial to experience Online Pass." According to the official Online Pass web site, Madden NFL 11, EA Sports MMA, FIFA 11, NBA Live 11, NFL 11, and NCAA Football 11 will also employ the "original purchaser" targeted plan.

EA has implemented similar anti-used game measurements with games like Mass Effect 2, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and The Saboteur, leading to one class action lawsuit against retailer GameStop, which specializes in used game sales.

If this sounds unappealing to you, let the soothing words of EA Sports president Peter Moore ease your troubles. "This is an important inflection point in our business because it allows us to accelerate our commitment to enhance premium online services to the entire robust EA SPORTS online community," said Peter Moore. I feel better already!

Random boldies to sooth the pain.


So, this doesn't really bother me because basketball games are usually bought new for me, and usually on day 1. But the business model as a whole makes sense from a business standpoint but I kind of depend on sales or used games to keep my gaming hobby alive. Again this proves to be a non-issue for me because I rarely visit the online realm of sports games (aside from NFL Street and Tiger 04, R.I.P.) but a lot of people are going to get pissed off when they pick up Live 11 used and want to play their buddy and find out they have to cough up another 10 or 15 bucks, especially if they are paying 50 a year for XBL.

EA has already damaged their "image" with the non-hardcore sports gamer. Madden is pretty much the same year in and year out, NBA Live has been on the "rebound" (heh) since the PS2/Xbox days and no one plays hockey (although they should). I could see this being the last straw to a casual gamer who picked the game up used at gamestop for 55 bucks and then ends up paying 65 or 70 instead of just getting it new for 60. Granted they should just buy it new anyway (I'm not supporting gamestop and their exclusive preorder BS at all) but there are going to be a lot more pissed off casual and gift receiver sports gamers this year.

It doesn't affect me either as I always get NBA Live new and on Day 1, but I expect there'll be significant backlash. However, I don't think it's that unfair that a used product doesn't immediately qualify for any services that could be deemed "premium", considering developers don't make a cent off second hand game sales. It would be a different story if we had to pay for an NBA Live 365 subscription and online play in addition to the cost of a new game, though I guess those of us who have 360s already are with our Gold subscriptions, as demanded by most of the titles with online play and features. Until now, NBA Live 365 has been available with a Silver subscription though.

I should update this, but on the left you can drop down to see the features for each game, for "NBA 11" (not NBA Live 11 )

Access to Dynamic DNA, giving you daily updates to player DNA and ratings, rosters, injuries, and more.

Dynamic Season mode where you can play along with the real 2010-11 NBA Season, re-writing history with each game.

Online Multiplayer Modes including Versus, Team Play, Online Leagues, and More**

**Xbox LIVE Gold account also required to access online features.

*RESTRICTIONS APPLY. SEE MANUAL FOR DETAILS.

That "and More" seems a good excuse to speculate, though it could just mean adidas Live Run. Good to hear that Dynamic Season will be featured again, I like the concept as an alternative to Dynasty Mode.

From EA's official site.

Is this intended to combat second sale?

We actually view the second sale market as an opportunity to develop a direct relationship with our consumers, and with Online Pass everyone has access to the same premium online services and content regardless of how and where you buy the game. In order to continue to enhance the online experiences that are attracting nearly five million connected game sessions a day, again, we think it’s fair to get paid for the services we provide and to reserve these online services for people who pay EA to access them. In return, we’ll continue to invest in creating great games and offer industry-leading online services to extend the game experience to everyone. I don’t think even the harshest cynic can argue with that and instead I think fans will see the value we’re committing to deliver when they see all the services, features and bonus content that is extending the life of their products.

Fuck fair.
Buying a used game means that the ownership or rights as an owner of the game has been transferred to the new owner and so should be other things, like online access, that are included with an original brand new game. EA just wants mo' money.
Fair? EA playing the victim card.

Buying a used game means that the ownership or rights as an owner of the game has been transferred to the new owner and so should be other things, like online access, that are included with an original brand new game.

Does it really? Maybe it's a grey area, but I'm not sure it actually works like that under software license agreements. I don't think it's unfair that EA (or any other developer) would want some revenue from second hand sales that they normally wouldn't profit from, but others could potentially profit from several times over. I'd agree that the reasoning/justification that Moore offered is questionable, though it wouldn't be very PR friendly to just come out and say "We want our slice of the second hand games pie".

Still, I think she's some merit in what he's getting at. Is it really fair that someone is able to use EA's servers - their property, their hardware, their resources - without paying them a cent? Beyond that, is it fair to the people who bought the game new/upon its release that people who bought their copy second hand and perhaps months later at a much lower cost get the same benefits? When you buy a product second hand, you can seldom expect the same guarantees, warranties or often the same quality as a new product. "One per customer" and "non-transferrable" are not unethical practices; companies want to avoid being taken advantage of just as much as their consumers.

Granted I don't know the exact details of software license agreements, I'll just answer based on the hypothetical scenario I have set with my previous post, which fortunately Andrew understands so we can move on with my reply

Is it really fair that someone is able to use EA's servers - their property, their hardware, their resources - without paying them a cent?

The payment for use of EA's resources have already been paid by the first owner. The first owner already has the right to use such resources, it's his prerogative if he wants to hand that over to a new owner by selling his game.
First owner pays access to such resources, EA gains $$$.
Second owner pays access to resources, EA gains $$$ again.
EA gains $$$ twice.

First owner pays access to resources, EA gains $$$
Second owner doesn't pay but still gets access OR first owner declines to sell his game.
EA still gains $$$, but not twice as the previous example. EA still gains $$$, what are they complaining about. Though the aspect of 'fairness' falls on the decision of the first owner.

Beyond that, is it fair to the people who bought the game new/upon its release that people who bought their copy second hand and perhaps months later at a much lower cost get the same benefits?

As stated above, it's up to the first owner to decide what's fair. If the first owner decides it's okay to sell his game and get something in return by selling it at a lower price so be it, if he doesn't want that to happen, don't sell the owned game. No need for EA to include itself and regulate such 'second sell' transactions and say it's in the basis of fairness.

When you buy a product second hand, you can seldom expect the same guarantees, warranties or often the same quality as a new product. "One per customer" and "non-transferrable" are not unethical practices; companies want to avoid being taken advantage of just as much as their consumers.

True, this is clearly a solid technical basis where my (hypothetical rights) scenario no longer applies, where specific knowledge of software license agreements is a must so I'll leave that one, unless I read more about basic software license agreements......nah.

Gamestop must have been making a killing for it to attract the attention of EA.

The payment for use of EA's resources have already been paid by the first owner. The first owner already has the right to use such resources, it's his prerogative if he wants to hand that over to a new owner by selling his game.

Well, that's the question: does that first owner have the rights to pass that along? I would think EA has the right to allow or disallow people from using their resources (ie their server) as they see fit, since they're the ones who have to maintain it. It's difficult to say what the user's rights truly are given the limitations on software usage rights and whether all parts of the agreement can actually be passed on to someone else; perhaps someone like Ben can give a clearer answer on that. But as far as the first owner looking to sell dictating what's fair, why should they have more of a say than the company who spent the time and money developing it or people who buy the game new?

It also depends on the second hand price. If you pick up the game for $40, pay the extra $10 to access online content and the game normally retails for about $60, then you're still paying less than you would a new game, so you're still getting a deal. As Jon said, it's something that might turn away the casual gamer but in the grand scheme of things it's not really that unfair. Certainly no more unfair than Xbox Live itself having premium subscriptions and most titles requiring a paid membership to play online and the like.

I guess it's EA's use of the word 'fair' that gets into me. It's rare to see a billion dollar international corporation use the word 'fair' as justification for their actions (even though it was used for their own end and not the consumers).

I can see where you're coming from there but there's got to be fairness on all sides. And of course, there is a free seven day trial for people renting games or casual gamers who want to see if it's something they want to invest their time (and money) in.

and most titles requiring a paid membership to play online and the like.

I dont know of a 360 game that has a separate payment for online other than XBL.

The trouble I have with this has to do with shadow's argument of getting paid twice. If they want more money from the same game, release (good) DLC. I can understand about using their servers and crap but the precedent isn't there for them to withhold online play without a code. Add stuff to get money, dont cut back and ask for money for basic features.

I just don't like it because what's next? Can't play more than 2 minute quarters offline without an activated code? It's heading down a slippery slide and like DRM can get way out of control.

I mean imagine how pissed the 40% of people who buy these games are that don't have their console online and can't get the patches that fix the huge glitches the game releases with each year.

I dont know of a 360 game that has a separate payment for online other than XBL.

Sorry, I was talking about the Gold subscription itself. I believe most games require the Gold subscription to play online, so basically if you want to play online you've got to pay for something above and beyond the cost of the game in terms of the annual XBL subscription fee.

I see what you're saying about it possibly being a slippery slope but I think developers are savvy enough to realise when gamers would revolt and that would probably be when brand new copies don't have support/complimentary codes to access all the content. At least, I hope they would have more common sense there.

Didn't they do this last year, but apply it to Live 365/Dynamic DNA? I wonder if they are adding all online features because of a workaround. Maybe people could play online and the game would automatically download the latest DNA update and they could save it. Just a guess. I won't care since I get the game new, but as long as the online features are one of the main focuses of the game, I don't think it's a problem. They can get bad press for this if the online features are crap or not in working order.

If they want more money from the same game, release (good) DLC. I can understand about using their servers and crap but the precedent isn't there for them to withhold online play without a code. Add stuff to get money, dont cut back and ask for money for basic features.

I just don't like it because what's next? Can't play more than 2 minute quarters offline without an activated code? It's heading down a slippery slide and like DRM can get way out of control.

Just imagine if any DLC for Live could be user made, like community mods.
I agree on the DRM. What if I want to play a game in the future? Can't do it with the limited installs and required activation from a non-existing server.

I mean imagine how pissed the 40% of people who buy these games are that don't have their console online and can't get the patches that fix the huge glitches the game releases with each year.

That's more of a Microsoft problem, I think. Once an update is certified and available, maybe it could be put on a disk and will install when you put it in your Xbox. But that would make too much sense and lose them some Live subscriptions.

I think gamestop has been making a killing with used game sales. There is also some problems in that system, though. Preordering a game with $5 down while selling 3 games gave me about $35 extra on my used games which I used toward buying a new game at the time. I never bought the preordered game and they emailed me saying I had an unused gift card worth $25 after a while. Weird.

Didn't they do this last year, but apply it to Live 365/Dynamic DNA?

Yeah, it's basically what they've already been doing with the NBA Live 365 subscriptions in 09 and 10.

Let's say you sell 10,000 copies of your game new. And half those people sell the game to GameStop after two months.

And 350 people buy the used copies with the rest sitting on the shelf.

How many players are playing your game online now?

And when your next game comes out and half of the people who didn't sell back originally do, along with 90% of the people who picked up the used copy, how many people are playing your prior game online by the time the two month cycle starts over? And how much is this costing you?

Zero, because you're EA and you shut the servers off anyway.

But as far as the first owner looking to sell dictating what's fair, why should they have more of a say than the company who spent the time and money developing it or people who buy the game new?

The first owner is someone who bought the game new. They purchased the game from a retailer who had purchased it from EA. (So I guess technically they'd be the first owner, but alas.) And a used game sale is them selling it to another party. EA's already sold the game to the retailer, and unless they agreed to buy back the copies (which does not always happen, and considering how much EA games fill up the clearance racks I doubt they do it very often) they will get no further money from sales of the game. Should retailers also have the ability to dictate who has access to certain features of the game?

companies want to avoid being taken advantage of just as much as their consumers.

How are they being taken advantage of if two consenting parties agree to a transaction not involving them that doesn't cost them anything? Unless you're going to make a claim that EA is entitled to people purchasing their games at MSRP only.

Beyond that, is it fair to the people who bought the game new/upon its release that people who bought their copy second hand and perhaps months later at a much lower cost get the same benefits?

Yes, of course it is, don't be silly. It is beyond fair, as it always has been.

Shadowgrin is right, there is nothing here about "fairness" it's EA trying to acquire a third party transaction fee. (We'll see if they're successful.) If EA was honestly attempting to be "fair" (and pay for their online costs) they would not allow any online access until you paid the $10 or until you paid a subscription fee. Then it'd be fair not just between people who buy at release and people who purchase a release copy at a later date from a prior owner, but also include the people who purchase a new copy at a discounted rate from retailers at a later date.

This kind of stuff is why they want a DD only future. So the game price can stay the same for good and they get all the money. And nobody can play it without their permission or having had bought it from them. And as EA (and OnLive!) has shown, so they can force to you keep paying for the game even after your original purchase lest you lose access to play it.

Granted, no one is really taking advantage of EA with a second hand game sale. However, it sometimes seems we have double standards as consumers. We're wary of being ripped off and rightfully so, but at the same time we're willing to justify putting one over on those big bad corporations, to dust off a cliche.

But if fairness is the issue here, then is what EA doing here wrong or unethical, or just an aggressive means of encouraging people to buy their games new so that they can sell more units and maximise the profits off their products? If it's the latter it might not be the greatest idea from a PR standpoint or kind to the second hand game market, but if it's within their rights to adopt such a strategy then can we really say it's unfair, when they have their own interests to look out for just as have ours as consumers?

Granted, no one is really taking advantage of EA with a second hand game sale. However, it sometimes seems we have double standards as consumers. We're wary of being ripped off and rightfully so, but at the same time we're willing to justify putting one over on those big bad corporations, to dust off a cliche.

Usually true, but in this case what double standards? The used buyer isn't looking to rip off or put one over the big corporation (EA) by being able to access the online resource, he just wants to have the intended full features of the game (DLC anyone?). EA isn't really being ripped off since the initial buyer already paid for online access and no added strain for maintenance on EA's servers since the initial owner doesn't have access to the servers anymore because he sold his game to the used buyer. If anyone is being ripped off it's the initial buyer since he sold his game at a lower price, but the initial buyer is aware of that and still decides to sell his used game so fairness to both is still applicable because the initial owner agreed to it, and selling at a lower price is justified in itself because of devaluation.

If it's the latter it might not be the greatest idea from a PR standpoint or kind to the second hand game market, but if it's within their rights to adopt such a strategy then can we really say it's unfair, when they have their own interests to look out for just as have ours as consumers?

If it's within their legal rights, it's justifiable but just because something is legal doesn't mean it's fair.

Usually true, but in this case what double standards? The used buyer isn't looking to rip off or put one over the big corporation (EA) by being able to access the online resource, he just wants to have the intended full features of the game (DLC anyone?). EA isn't really being ripped off since the initial buyer already paid for online access and no added strain for maintenance on EA's servers since the initial owner doesn't have access to the servers anymore because he sold his game to the used buyer.

Admittedly not so much in this case, though there seems to be an attitude amongst gamers - perhaps no one in this thread, mind you - that developers are evil or in the wrong for wanting to make money, when they're in business like everyone else.

If anyone is being ripped off it's the initial buyer since he sold his game at a lower price, but the initial buyer is aware of that and still decides to sell his used game so fairness to both is still applicable because the initial owner agreed to it, and selling at a lower price is justified in itself because of devaluation.

I'd agree wholeheartedly there. I don't know what it's like in the States and elsewhere, but here in Australia you don't get close to a fair trade-in price on games, even from stores that boast the best deals on trade-ins (though I suppose when everywhere else is offering virtually nothing, virtually nothing plus five bucks is still technically the best deal). i don't usually trade-in or sell games for that reason but when I do, I generally look to eBay where I can sell them at a price the stores usually put on their second hand titles after paying you a pittance for them.

If it's within their legal rights, it's justifiable but just because something is legal doesn't mean it's fair.

Fair call. Once again, I would have to admit that the fact I mostly just shop around for the best price and buy games new on release day means I don't see this as a huge travesty of justice because this isn't going to affect me.

But if fairness is the issue here, then is what EA doing here wrong or unethical, or just an aggressive means of encouraging people to buy their games new so that they can sell more units and maximise the profits off their products?

If fairness is the issue, then yes. But it's only EA who appears to be thinking this is about "fairness" because, as noted, they know they can't say that what they're trying to do is devalue a non-new copy of their games while hopefully picking up $10.

and selling at a lower price is justified in itself because of devaluation.

And worth noting that EA is hurting the original buyer of their game more, as without the online features (save a new $10 payment) there's no reason not to expect the copy has automatically depreciated an extra $10 over all non-EA titles. So those guys who buy Madden, then flip it into NBA Live and then flip into Halol, and then back to Madden, etc. are going to get less return on each copy of the EA titles they sell.

They should have priced the online higher, $20, and they might have contracted the used supply of their titles significantly.

I guess it remains to be seen how this is going to play out and whether EA are shooting themselves in the foot with this move. So far, it seems dubious at best from a PR standpoint whether they have a point about "fairness" or not.

It doesn't, they aren't. They're just trying to figure out how they can get console gamers to pay multiple times for different features or to replay their games like they did EA Link customers.

You do that with incrementalism, not suddenly changing the relationship.

In that case, how it is unfair or unethical?

Who said it was?

I thought that's what shadow was suggesting. I also thought you were saying the same thing when you answered my earlier question:

But if fairness is the issue here, then is what EA doing here wrong or unethical, or just an aggressive means of encouraging people to buy their games new so that they can sell more units and maximise the profits off their products?

If fairness is the issue, then yes. But it's only EA who appears to be thinking this is about "fairness" because, as noted, they know they can't say that what they're trying to do is devalue a non-new copy of their games while hopefully picking up $10.

But perhaps I misunderstood.

In that case, how it is unfair or unethical?

I thought that's what shadow was suggesting.

But perhaps I misunderstood.

Just to be clear, I'm bitching about EA using the idea of being 'fair' to justify or cover-up it's money grabbing operations, and I think so does benji.

It's rare to see a billion dollar international corporation use the word 'fair' as justification for their actions (even though it was used for their own end and not the consumers).

there is nothing here about "fairness" it's EA trying to acquire a third party transaction fee.

it's only EA who appears to be thinking this is about "fairness" because, as noted, they know they can't say that what they're trying to do is devalue a non-new copy of their games while hopefully picking up $10

...the discussion about fairness in the buyer-seller 'relationship' just happens to be parallel with my bitching.
And as what have already been stated or implied, EA's just after the money...

the reasoning/justification that Moore offered is questionable, though it wouldn't be very PR friendly to just come out and say "We want our slice of the second hand games pie".

Add stuff to get money, dont cut back and ask for money for basic features.

just an aggressive means of encouraging people to buy their games new so that they can sell more units and maximise the profits off their products?

They're just trying to figure out how they can get console gamers to pay multiple times for different features or to replay their games