Battlefield 3 Will "Probably" Use Online Pass

[kouriichi]

I dont see a problem with it.
If it means i get dedicated servers, constant bug patches, and a well balanced game, its worth the extra 15-20$.

 

[neonsword13-ops]

Battlfield 3 WILL use online pass.

EA is turning into the bastard of the gaming industry.

In my opinion anyway.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

NOT GIVING THE DEVELOPER AND PUBLISHER THE MONEY THEY ARE ENTITLED TO.

You lost me there. Entitled to money off of a second hand sale? Look up the First Sale Doctrine

Hey, I bought a book second hand! And I didn't pay the publisher money! SOMEONE STOP ME!

I don't mind an online pass for a multiplayer game if they say this: "The money we get when people buy second handhelps keep the servers running". If that's the case, fine. BUT, then there is no reason for them to lock out content on single player games because it doesnt' cost them server space.

 

[Jegsimmons]

yeah....thats not a good idea....though im buying it new i still think its an idea that is likely to piss people off.

 

[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.

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.

Nice try, I don't care when EA shut down servers to a game I play. I just move on and play something else. And I'm not stingy with my money (I am buying the Augmented Edition of Dues Ex, and the 60 dollar box for Disgaea 4 so eat me on beating stingy, and I just bought a new copy of Radiant Historia which is a great JRPG for the DS). And like you said I do buy a license to use that game, but if I sell it to someone else I transfer that license to someone else. What is it you people don't understand about that, I haven't heard of publishers complaining about used game sales when a game sales well, I only hear them whine when a game does poorly in sales. Show me one press release were Activison says "Well Black Ops had great sales, but it could have been better if used games weren't their. There is nothing wrong buying a game new, but there is something wrong when some of the content is locked so I can't sell it and transfer my licsnece or my right to play that game.

 

[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.

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).

Because WoW is huge, literally and figuratively. And they are "punishing" those they consider "free loaders". Like it says, when someone buy's used, they lose money. It's not that much money on it's own, but everyone who buys used is not only a lost costumer, but an extra work load on the servers. There's also the part where it's almost as expensive to buy the game used + the pass as it is to buy it new, which is the choose they are trying to get you to make. The last time I was in Gamestop, BlOps was selling for about 52 used, and 60 new. If I was to every buy the game, I would have forked over the extra few dollars so that my copy would be pristine.

 

[Frostbite3789]

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).

So instead, you're saying punish everyone for the people who buy used? No, I'd rather have project $10, where I get all the features for buying the game new. And don't have to pay a monthly fee, because someone else wants to buy it used.

Also, you can always finds games new on Amazon. That's a piss-poor excuse.

 

[Arehexes]

I dont see a problem with it.
If it means i get dedicated servers, constant bug patches, and a well balanced game, its worth the extra 15-20$.

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.

Soooo why not pay monthly fees. I mean that why even those who bought it new can help pay to keep the servers up. Although most of the people who are going to go against this are hypocrites, because they are thinking now "Hey it won't effect me let those people pay for extra also to help for server costs". But if it's monthly fees most people will be like "THAT'S SO UNFAIR I DON'T WANNA PAY"

NOT GIVING THE DEVELOPER AND PUBLISHER THE MONEY THEY ARE ENTITLED TO.

You lost me there. Entitled to money off of a second hand sale? Look up the First Sale Doctrine

Hey, I bought a book second hand! And I didn't pay the publisher money! SOMEONE STOP ME!

I don't mind an online pass for a multiplayer game if they say this: "The money we get when people buy second handhelps keep the servers running". If that's the case, fine. BUT, then there is no reason for them to lock out content on single player games because it doesnt' cost them server space.

Hey haven't you heard, games shouldn't be treated like books because they aren't the same lol [/sarcasm].

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Hey haven't you heard, games shouldn't be treated like books because they aren't the same lol [/sarcasm].

Except when the topic of law and the First Amendment come into play! Then we are like every other form of media.

You can't only take the parts of capitalism you like, EA

 

[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).

Because WoW is huge, literally and figuratively. And they are "punishing" those they consider "free loaders". Like it says, when someone buy's used, they lose money. It's not that much money on it's own, but everyone who buys used is not only a lost costumer, but an extra work load on the servers. There's also the part where it's almost as expensive to buy the game used + the pass as it is to buy it new, which is the choose they are trying to get you to make. The last time I was in Gamestop, BlOps was selling for about 52 used, and 60 new. If I was to every buy the game, I would have forked over the extra few dollars so that my copy would be pristine.

So I guess Atlus lost a lot of money from me because I had to buy all my SMT games used for the PS2, damnit I'm such a bastard. And it's not a lost costumer when someone buys it used, BECAUSE THE LISCNE TO PLAY THE GAME WAS TRANSFERRED. Oh god I can't believe people don't realize this yet. It would be a lost sale if I bought a game and made a copy of it and gave it away, that is a lost sale. But if I just give someone the copy of bought it's not lost because either way that one copy is being used by ONE PERSON.

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).

So instead, you're saying punish everyone for the people who buy used? No, I'd rather have project $10, where I get all the features for buying the game new. And don't have to pay a monthly fee, because someone else wants to buy it used.

Also, you can always finds games new on Amazon. That's a piss-poor excuse.

See that's what I'm talking about, your ok when it won't effect you but the moment their is a chance of hurting everyone it's "punishment".

If you guys are ok with used players paying for server costs why do you protest the idea of monthly fees. Remember your helping keep the servers up so you can play longer.

 

[sansamour14]

Modern Warfare might not charge for online play, but they charge for maps. They charge 15 a pop for map packs. You don't have the pack and you've got the nasty problem of consistently getting booted from games when everyone else has paid in for the maps and you haven't. So MW2 charged 15 bucks for each map pack, in addition to the 60 bucks for the game itself.

Battlefield BC2, charged me 60 bucks, that was it. I got all the maps downloaded when they came out for no charge at all, and even if I didn't, I still wouldn't have to worry about getting kicked or being unable to play at all. Not to mention there was no outrageous waiting times to play online.

Everybody's up in arms about online passes and saying Modern Warfare is awesome because they won't charge for multiplayer, but you are getting charged every time a map pack comes out. Three of my friends got into Battlefield recently, two with used copies, and one with a copy whose VIP code was linked to another account. 10 bucks for the VIP acess, and that was it. How much would it cost to get Black Ops and all the maps? New, 105 dollars, used 75 dollars. Who's really charging more here guys?

EXCACTLY

id rather pay the extra 10 bucks to have dedicated servers and free map packs than buying a used copy of MW3 and having to pay like 60 more bucks for the 4 map packs that im sure its gonna get. In essence im saving money in the long run and it makes for a better online experience.

Im buying it new on day one so this whole fiasco doesnt matter to me much

 

[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.

£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...

The console price, that's been the price of new games lately.

I know it's a rip off but it is what it is.

Makes me laugh when people bought the £120 version of black ops, like you have to be insane to pay that much for a game and a car!

 

[Marudas]

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.

I buy games new. That has nothing to do with my point. I'm defending the secondary markets right to exist, but if developers want a piece of the secondary market, they don't get it just because someone traded a game to his buddy or gave it to his local gamestop. If I give away my new game to someone else, I no longer have the license, but they do, see how that works? One copy of the license was already purchased. There is still only one license that EA is paying for server space for.

Buying games used is a gamers right. If it helps you, dont think of them as buying the CD, think of them as buying the license. They are buying the previous player out of their license. EA's finances should be balanced with the idea that if a game is bought new, it provides the funds that the company needed to pay for their servers for that one person. Just because the person changes doesn't mean the number of players does.

Listen. When a developer or publisher gripes about the used game market, its just greed and whining. It has been proven irrefutably that a game that is GOOD will sell tons of new game copies. Games that aren't as good, gamers hold off on or look for deals or used games. This isn't complicated. Stop falling for publisher bullshit claiming that their games are dying because people are buying it used.


I'll elaborate one last time. Lets say EA needs 500 people to play their game to stay afloat. If the game gets sold 500 times, then resold used 250 times, there are still 500 players on the server, and the game was still sold 500 times. No matter how often the game trades hands, the population to games bought stays exactly the same. 1:1. If EA only has 250 people on their server, it doesn't matter how many times the game gets retraded, it simply means that the game wasn't popular or interesting enough for 500 people to want to play it. End of story.

 

[Arehexes]

Hey haven't you heard, games shouldn't be treated like books because they aren't the same lol [/sarcasm].

Except when the topic of law and the First Amendment come into play! Then we are like every other form of media.

You can't only take the parts of capitalism you like, EA

In the future when you sell books second hand half the pages will burn away like magic and if you send the author 20 bucks plus a 20 page essay on why you want to read the book the pages shall come back.

 

[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.

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.

I buy games new. That has nothing to do with my point. I'm defending the secondary markets right to exist, but if developers want a piece of the secondary market, they don't get it just because someone traded a game to his buddy or gave it to his local gamestop. If I give away my new game to someone else, I no longer have the license, but they do, see how that works? One copy of the license was already purchased. There is still only one license that EA is paying for server space for.

Buying games used is a gamers right. If it helps you, dont think of them as buying the CD, think of them as buying the license. They are buying the previous player out of their license. EA's finances should be balanced with the idea that if a game is bought new, it provides the funds that the company needed to pay for their servers for that one person. Just because the person changes doesn't mean the number of players does.

Listen. When a developer or publisher gripes about the used game market, its just greed and whining. It has been proven irrefutably that a game that is GOOD will sell tons of new game copies. Games that aren't as good, gamers hold off on or look for deals or used games. This isn't complicated. Stop falling for publisher bullshit claiming that their games are dying because people are buying it used.

I liked the last part because I never hear a new story about publishers blaming pirates or second hand games if the game sold well, only if it sold poorly.

 

[Frostbite3789]

See that's what I'm talking about, your ok when it won't effect you but the moment their is a chance of hurting everyone it's "punishment".

If you guys are ok with used players paying for server costs why do you protest the idea of monthly fees. Remember your helping keep the servers up so you can play longer.

Yes, I'm okay when I'm not affected because I paid the full price for the game. I'm not trying to get a discount and ***** when I don't all the features, despite getting the game for a lower price.

You want to be able to have your cake and eat it too. That's what everything you have said sounds like.

Also, you've clearly never once touched a PC game in your entire life. If you had, this in no way, shape or form would bother you. You know, where there isn't a used sale market.

To use the used car analogy every anti-online pass user wants to use, if you buy a used car and it's a junker, and the brake pads are a mess, and a mirror is missing, the car lot doesn't have to fix that for you. You wanted to get the car for cheaper, you foot the bill on those repairs. You don't get buy a clunker and expect a Ferrari.

 

[funguy2121]

The game is unreleased; this won't even be news for a few months, and if store shelves are suddenly flooded with used copies of the game within the first 6 months, that won't bode well for the game anywho.

I am anticipating the Hell out of this game, though.

 

[Arehexes]

See that's what I'm talking about, your ok when it won't effect you but the moment their is a chance of hurting everyone it's "punishment".

If you guys are ok with used players paying for server costs why do you protest the idea of monthly fees. Remember your helping keep the servers up so you can play longer.

Yes, I'm okay when I'm not affected because I paid the full price for the game. I'm not trying to get a discount and ***** when I don't all the features, despite getting the game for a lower price.

You want to be able to have your cake and eat it too. That's what everything you have said sounds like.

Also, you've clearly never once touched a PC game in your entire life. If you had, this in no way, shape or form would bother you. You know, where there isn't a used sale market.

To use the used car analogy every anti-online pass user wants to use, if you buy a used car and it's a junker, and the brake pads are a mess, and a mirror is missing, the car lot doesn't have to fix that for you. You wanted to get the car for cheaper, you foot the bill on those repairs. You don't get buy a clunker and expect a Ferrari.

Ok once you can eat me on that never touched a PC game bull, look at my profile, you will see something their called STEAM. If you click on it to see my profile you will see I own about.......130+ games (I don't know why it says I own 198 games). So I refuse to listen to you anymore since you just want to assume you know EVERYTHING ABOUT ME. So yeah I do know PC games don't have a used market you jack off, but consoles games do and should. And the used car thing doesn't work, I bought a used 2010 honda civic with 400 miles for 17,000 dollars from Carmax and I had like 6 months where they will repair it. So lets see

1.You claim I never played a PC game yet I have a steam account with 198 games soooo wow don't you look dumb.

2.I bought a used car (2010 honda civic) with 400 miles for 17,000 dollars (1000 dollars more then the 2006 model I was going to get) with 6 months where carmax would look at my car if something was wrong

In other words, try more dude cause you FAIL.

EDIT:
Also if everyone is paying monthly fees you wouldn't be anymore effect then anyone else