EA Sports Locks Out Multiplayer Modes On Used Sales

At used game stores like Gamespot, the difference between new and used is often $5 or less. It also doesn't matter what the retail price point is set at. The used game price point will always be lower. Since new games are currently identical to used game, why not pick up the game for $5 less? This helps Gamespot and hurts EA.

Now, more a burden will placed onto Gamestop. They will have to lower prices on used games to compensate for the new 'taxes'. If anything, this is a win for used game buyers at the expense of Gamestop (an undesirable company from the perspective of EA).

With this move, they're trying to split it up into two products: The Game, and Online Access, but they don't make the distinction when you buy the game new, only when you buy it used. This borders on violating the first sale doctrine, because the product becomes crippled or partly used-up when you purchase it, for no good reason.

I can understand EA perfectly, they wish very strongly that they were in the business of selling services on a per-month basis, but they are in the commodities business where they sell stuff, and their rights to dictate what can and can't be done with said stuff expires when it's sold.

There are a few companies (Autodesk?) that try to maintain that their commercial software licenses are non-transferable, but they usually get told to stuff it when they try to stop people from buying old licenses. I am slightly worried and curious as to why you seem to think that non-transferable commercial licenses are a good idea?

To address your point, they are getting paid when someone buys and uses their product. Currently the $60 price tag includes usage of the game servers for a single person. If that person sells the game why should the new owner have to pay an additional cost? The old user is no longer using the servers and as far as EA is concerned their cost didn't change.

In other industries it's theft? I've never bought a new car so all the used cars I've bought have been theft? What about used cars that still had original warranties intact? Should I be forced to buy a new warranty since I wasn't the original person who purchased it, even though it's tied to the car?

Even if the cost of hiring individual programmers has remained constant (and I don't have evidence one way or another there - we'd have to consult something like Game Developers' annual salary survey and apply the appropriate adjustments), development teams have definitely grown in size. Bigger teams mean more developers (from all disciplines), including additional management and QA staff.

There are also other cost areas to consider, such as licensing fees and devkit costs, but I'm afraid that I can't share specific numbers there.

I would guess that a good number of players who sell their old games use the money to buy new games. This move will definitely push the price of EA's used games down, I would guess by close to $10 for games with significant online content. Which means that EA's primary customers (the people buying the new games) now have $10 less to invest in their new game for every old game that they sell. I can't see people increasing their spend on new games to compensate for this, so the net result could be that EA get more money from used sales, which is more or less balanced out by getting less money from new sales.