Battlefield 3 Will "Probably" Use Online Pass

[omega 616]

Just to play devils advocate, they will make there money back plus a butt load more. I know these games cost millions to make but millions of people will pay £50/60 a pop to play it new.

I can't say I blame them though, companies are always passing the charges onto there customers, if something costs more to the person supplying it, they will charge there customer more.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

I don't care AS LONG AS THEY TELL YOU. I hadn't bought an EA game for sometime when I bought BFBC2 second hand, for about 5 quid less than new. Sucks for me when the first unlocks already come to about a tenner and the later stuff really adds up.

It would be nice to make a big fucking notice on the back that says you miss out on loads of shit if you don't buy it new. Not oh you get a pretty gun with an exclusive pass because I could not care less about a shiny gun and would pay a fiver less if it meant I got the rest of the game.

Or at least make those fuckers in the stores have to tell you. Seriously pissed me off with BFBC2.

 

[Arehexes]

Horseshit. If a game gets sold preowned, that means that someone gained a license at the same time that someone lost a license. There is still a net number of people on the server. I dont know what possible "Big backend processes" that he's spouting, but i'm getting sick of it.

Yes, you are entitled to money for people being on your server. No, you are not entitled to secondary market money when you were not at all involved in the exchange of the copy, and no, you do not get some magical extra server load from this game trading hands.

Hey look someone gets the whole problem with these logic, selling your copy passes your license because someone ALREADY BOUGHT IT. It's just EA dipping their stinking hands in the second hand market.

 

[JaceArveduin]

Well this sucks, since I'm refusing the buy any game that uses online passes (I hope people follow me in this because if we let this go on we won't own the games we buy). So while I love battlefield I'm not buying this, I refuse to support online pass's period.

You're buying the game, not the server's you use for multiplayer, which I'm pretty sure is the point of it. They keep their servers up and running, but the people who buy use aren't helping them keep it that way.

 

[GeorgW]

Meh, no big surprise and I always buy new, but EA is really doing their part to kill the game they claim will be the biggest selling ever before it's even done.

 

[Frostbite3789]

I was half-heartely hoping that Battlefield 3 would do better than MW3 but once I read this I sighed and cancelled all of my hopes of getting this game till' it's in the bargain bins... and even then I'll only play the singleplayer.

So you only want to play the Single Player...but online pass is making it a not buy game?

Explain.

OT: Also, as someone who plays and has played both console and PC games for a long time, every time I see a console gamer whining and bitching about online pass, it makes me want to find them, and shake them vigorously, telling them to man the hell up just a little.

 

[Arehexes]

Well this sucks, since I'm refusing the buy any game that uses online passes (I hope people follow me in this because if we let this go on we won't own the games we buy). So while I love battlefield I'm not buying this, I refuse to support online pass's period.

You're buying the game, not the server's you use for multiplayer, which I'm pretty sure is the point of it. They keep their servers up and running, but the people who buy use aren't helping them keep it that way.

Still doesn't explain a single player game like Mass Effect 2 pulling that stunt. I still have my code in my box to show people it's just a scam. And again if server upkeep is a problem just drop the pretense and charge monthly fees. We both know fans of the series will pay for it anyway.

 

[Phenakist]

Just to play devils advocate, they will make there money back plus a butt load more. I know these games cost millions to make but millions of people will pay £50/60 a pop to play it new.

I can't say I blame them though, companies are always passing the charges onto there customers, if something costs more to the person supplying it, they will charge there customer more.

£50/60 to play it new? what site are you looking at?

But anyway, I don't care about it, I'm buying it new, and I don't see the problem in it anyway, the only people it's really going to hurt are the ones who try and buy it second hand 2 weeks after the game's released and they would pay more than the game new...

Support the dev, I know it's EA and we all know what they're like, buuuuut DICE are DICE, and they make good games, and aren't simply rehashes, unlike other unnamed shooter titles...

 

[Vakz]

This is news? THQ, Ubisoft and EA each announced quite some time ago that this will be featured in pretty much all their upcoming games.

 

[Whateveralot]

I don't really care. It's like entering a key-code, but then it works online and prevents reselling, which is something I don't care about because this is one of those games that I'm not buying second-handed anyway.

But assuming that what he says is right, I'm apparently more flexible than other gamers.

 

[antipunt]

Normally I'd naturally decry a price increase in any form, but then I thought:

Who should I support. The devs? or Gamestop
-__-

(half j/k, I know there are other avenues for getting used games. Still, the logic justifying the 'online-pass' seems to hold up regardless, to me at least)

 

[JaceArveduin]

Well this sucks, since I'm refusing the buy any game that uses online passes (I hope people follow me in this because if we let this go on we won't own the games we buy). So while I love battlefield I'm not buying this, I refuse to support online pass's period.

You're buying the game, not the server's you use for multiplayer, which I'm pretty sure is the point of it. They keep their servers up and running, but the people who buy use aren't helping them keep it that way.

Still doesn't explain a single player game like Mass Effect 2 pulling that stunt. I still have my code in my box to show people it's just a scam. And again if server upkeep is a problem just drop the pretense and charge monthly fees. We both know fans of the series will pay for it anyway.

The Mass Effect one is retarded, I didn't know about it though, since I haven't followed the series. Monthly fees would mean everyone would have to pay, this way, only people who bought it used will have to. If they did try monthly fees, the game probably wouldn't even sale on release.

 

[pspman45]

by "probably" they mean "will"
its EA people, don't expect them to do you any favors

 

[Thedayrecker]

Well, I'm getting it for the PC, so no pre-owned for me anyways.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

If it wasn't EA, I probably wouldn't mind so much. They make tons of money from these games yet they feel the need to wring just a little more out.

It doesn't make any difference anyway. The only thing that changes is who ends up scamming you, EA or Gamestop(who bought the game for like 20 bucks and sells it for 5 bucks under new retail).

 

[Sgt_Jakeman214]

Horseshit. If a game gets sold preowned, that means that someone gained a license at the same time that someone lost a license. There is still a net number of people on the server. I dont know what possible "Big backend processes" that he's spouting, but i'm getting sick of it.

Yes, you are entitled to money for people being on your server. No, you are not entitled to secondary market money when you were not at all involved in the exchange of the copy, and no, you do not get some magical extra server load from this game trading hands.

Hey look someone gets the whole problem with these logic, selling your copy passes your license because someone ALREADY BOUGHT IT. It's just EA dipping their stinking hands in the second hand market.

You two and people like you will be the ones crying when EA shuts down their servers due to high costs if they don't go ahead with this online pass/project $10 thing. Then you won't be able to play BF3 at all. If you are really that stingy that you don't want to pay full price for a game and have that money go to the developer and publisher, allowing them to create and publish more great games, then you are a moron and not a gamer. The second hand market will always exist, that is how capitalism works, but if you want access to all the features and multiplayer that EA runs at a very little cost to you that is incorporated into the cost of a NEW GAME, pay the $10 afterwards.

For the earlier point mentioned about not owning the games we buy, that is a whole different kettle of fish. When you buy a game, you are buying the LICENSE to use that game. The CD/DVD/Digital Distribution Service that you get that game from is only a delivery method. That has nothing to do with the issue of paying a small activation fee to play online with a preowned game.

So, if you want high quality AAA Games that are developed and published by the Big companies, pay the little bit extra, especially if you are buying preowned AND NOT GIVING THE DEVELOPER AND PUBLISHER THE MONEY THEY ARE ENTITLED TO. If you don't want to, there are plenty of Great Indie developed games out there for $30 bucks. Point in case, MINECRAFT.

 

[Arehexes]

Well this sucks, since I'm refusing the buy any game that uses online passes (I hope people follow me in this because if we let this go on we won't own the games we buy). So while I love battlefield I'm not buying this, I refuse to support online pass's period.

You're buying the game, not the server's you use for multiplayer, which I'm pretty sure is the point of it. They keep their servers up and running, but the people who buy use aren't helping them keep it that way.

Still doesn't explain a single player game like Mass Effect 2 pulling that stunt. I still have my code in my box to show people it's just a scam. And again if server upkeep is a problem just drop the pretense and charge monthly fees. We both know fans of the series will pay for it anyway.

The Mass Effect one is retarded, I didn't know about it though, since I haven't followed the series. Monthly fees would mean everyone would have to pay, this way, only people who bought it used will have to. If they did try monthly fees, the game probably wouldn't even sale on release.

So punish those who buy it used? Yeah that's fair, I mean WoW does monthly fees and people seem to love it a lot. I'm just saying I can't take the "server" upkeep excuse seriously when EA can just charge for monthly fees from those who play that why they can drop this project 10 dollar facade and stop sticking their fingers in games I want to buy used, or a game I can't find new anywhere and am forced to buy new (or if your unlucky a gamestop employee who will lie and say they have no new copies to sell you a new one so they can add it to their numbers).

 

[Jonny49]

I wonder if people would be so forgiving if we were talking about a different game.

Something like...Modern Warfare 3?

 

[BenzSmoke]

I'm not a fan of this idea. However I see the point.
If you buy used, then the publisher/developer doesn't get any money. Money that is needed to keep servers running.

Actually, now that I think about it... this doesn't make sense to me. If you are buying pre-owned, then that means that someone at some point purchased it new, so the publishers/developers have already received their money. I pick it up used and I'm expected to pay for multiplayer that was already payed for by the original purchaser? Buying a game used won't cost additional bandwidth! Sounds more like they're just trying to get more money every time a game changes hands!

It makes even less sense from a more business-minded stand point! How would they be able to figure out if a game was bought used or not? Some sort of account based system? But wouldn't that also require a server and funds to run that server? I assume that the multiplayer pass would have to cost a fraction of the full game in order to appeal to those who buy used. So they'd still be making less money and have a new server that they'd have to keep running.