Battlefield 3 Will "Probably" Use Online Pass

[kingmob]

They won't make money this way. If BF3 is good, there is no reason to sell the game. And if someone wants to sell it will probably be after a couple of years. Prices will drop by then anyway. This isn't the kind of game that people will buy second-hand often.

I agree. Tbh, the sentiment where they come from is understandable, but sometimes it is better to just accept some negatives. I think that for BF3 the problem might be so small it is just not worth the bad press. Also, if I specifically start paying for online services, I also expect better results, that's the way it works. I do not know how BF handles it, but if you get cod style p2p servers, I would be pretty pissed off.

 

[SpAc3man]

And? I never trust second hand games and I'm not going to sell my copy.

 

[Griffolion]

Pre-ordered off Origin, so this doesn't affect me.

 

[kingmob]

Seems fair. Keep in mind that there's an expectation that you'll only use their servers for so long. That's what your money goes to. But when you star selling your games after you've played it for that length of time they reach a point where one sale could potentially be 10... 20... 500 people is it were resold enough and while it's acceptable for the initial buyer to play for 200,000 hours if they have the time and enthusiasm that's really not the amount of time they want each copy to be played for.

... Wait I'm probably rambling a bit... I can make this simpler:
Think of the (now defunct IIRC) free refills over they had at Pizza hut. The average customer is only really 2-3 drinks with their meal unless they're extraordinarily thirsty. That's how much is factored into their pricing. Now because you paid for it they'd probably stretch to 20 if you could force them down and not get kidney failure but if you were to start giving your glass to the next customer, transfering those free drinks then you're beginning to take break their fair use aggreement and they'd kick you both out.

That makes no sense to me. the total time is not really impacted by the amount it is resold. Well it probably is, but it will be a complex process. People reselling were probably not fans and therefore not playing that much. Same goes for second hand buyers. Some of them will become fans of course.
The point is, a game changing hands does not change anything about the amount of players at the same time, it is the same as if the same person would still have owned that game from a server load perspective. It is more akin to people sharing the same amount of free refills that normally one person would drink.

I think the impact of reselling to the server load is largely overestimated here anyway. And let's be frank, they just want in on the second hand action. It is not a sentiment I can blame them for, but it is also not unique to video games. Almost every single item in the world can get resold with no benefit to the initial seller. If it impacts you so much that you can not stay afloat, you increase the price. Since games are certainly not going that way I'm afraid for them their margins will simply go down a bit.

 

[xchurchx]

This isnt a problem for me as im buying this game on day one, also Bad Company 2 did the same thing, but called it a VIP code which gave you access to new maps, however it is worrying seeing more of these threads apearing stating this game will feature an online pass

 

[SemiHumanTarget]

oh boy, what else is new

 

[hazard99]

It costs money to pay for the servers? Why have separate servers on the xbox in the first place then?

I realise they want in on the second hand sales, but do they really have to push these flimsy excuses onto us?

 

[5t3v0]

Well BF3 looks like a long term game. Something that you will play for years. CoD is the sort of game you play for 3 months and then give in to activisions next money maker.

and besides, Im a PC gamer so I am nil effected.

 

[Mr. Google]

mmimimimimimimi, the game is ruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuined, which what will i buy now to show how much i will not buy cod?

I hope you arent serious. The game is far from ruined as long as youre buying it new. With the explanation they give I cant be angry. They give us dedicated servers. If CoD did this and they still had hosts then I could see the entire would being in an uproar but this makes sense and doesn't affect me so its all good.

i thought the amount of us in ruined was a dead giveaway.
I don't mind online passes if they are to unlock the MP, since that takes an infrastructure to run smoothly. Have online passes in order to access DLC is another thing.

Okay sorry I'm an idiot my bad haha.

 

[cieply]

A crazy idea:

Maybe they could, you know, allow buyers to put up their own servers! That would bring down managment costs to 0! Revolutionary, huh?!

 

[DTWolfwood]

fair enough to say you need server space for a new character. And seeing how they have no idea who has sold their game, they can't very well delete those accounts. so yes i can see how a used game may cause the Identification servers to increase in volume as compared to actual copy sold.

However, at the very least they aren't trying to give us the bullshit that its increasing the server load on the GAME servers. If they allow ppl to rent servers, even more so. they arent even going to pay for that.

It seems reasonable.

 

[aba1]

To be honest I really only play multiplayer locally online I find to be lame since its essentially the same as facing bots. So the point of my post is I am more certain than ever this is a waste of money

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

we don't get a single dime from a used game, but we still need to create server space and everything for you."

No they don't. On a used sale, the previous owner stops playing and taking up server space. It's like changing the driver on the vehicle. As far as they're concerned they're not affected in any way. It's just faulty logic to justify getting a few extra dimes.

There's just one tiny flaw in this thinking: the original owner stopped playing. If they hadn't resold it, that would mean the company would have to deal with less server demand. Having stopped playing and resold it, the company has to deal with more server demand than if the person had stopped playing and not resold it. The only exception is if the person resold it and wouldn't have stopped playing if they hadn't resold it, which is a relatively rare occurrence (people don't generally resell games that they still want to keep playing). Thus resale of of the game hurts the attrition rate of server demand without compensation to the people hosting the servers at all.

Same server demand just from a different person. Same attrition rate just the company didn't get money from the new guy. But to be fair in terms of server degradation its the same as before.

It isn't the same attrition rate at all - that was my entire point. When a company budgets for servers, they can assume that people will stop playing the game at a particular rate. Sales of used games extend that process by quite a bit because, instead of server demand going down when a customer stops playing, the customer resells the copy and the account remains active far longer than it previously would have. This costs the company more than it would have without the resale, despite the fact that they see none of the money of the resell.

They could accomplish this just as well by charging used-game retailers a little bit per game, which would have the same end result, except customers would see a higher initial price for used games without any "extra" fee. And no one would complain despite the fact that the cost would be identical. Unfortunately, there is essentially no way to make used-game retailers agree to this.

mmimimimimimimi, the game is ruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuined, which what will i buy now to show how much i will not buy cod?

I hope you arent serious. The game is far from ruined as long as youre buying it new. With the explanation they give I cant be angry. They give us dedicated servers. If CoD did this and they still had hosts then I could see the entire would being in an uproar but this makes sense and doesn't affect me so its all good.

i thought the amount of us in ruined was a dead giveaway.
I don't mind online passes if they are to unlock the MP, since that takes an infrastructure to run smoothly. Have online passes in order to access DLC is another thing.

Because DLC doesn't cost money to make. Or to distribute.

Good job.

The degree to which people are willing to completely eschew logic so they can complain about having to pay for things is absolutely fucking mindblowing.

 

[duchaked]

well...the campaign looks good
so that's what I'll be playing when I rent it heh

ah in all honesty that's what I was gonna do with MW3 anyway, so no winners or losers here yet lol

 

[THEoriginalBRIEN]

Thank you, EA for making my decision for me. MW3 it is.

 

[THEoriginalBRIEN]

Battlefield 3 Will "Probably" Use Online Pass


"The whole idea is that we're paying for servers, and if you create a new account there is a big process on how that is being handled in the backend," he explained. "We would rather have you buy a new game than a used game because buying a used game is only a cost to us; we don't get a single dime from a used game, but we still need to create server space and everything for you."

"We want people to at least pay us something to create this because we're paying for it. It was actually a loss for us to have new players," he continued. "Hopefully people understand why. It's not to punish people. To us it's compensation."



Permalink

You got a shit ton of dimes from the person who bought the game new, asshole. When he gets rid of the game and his account is therefore idle, it opens up space for a new one. I find it hard to believe creating an account costs EA that much money. More wallet rape from the distributors. Yay, capitalism.

 

[Vicarious Vangaurd]

So creating new accounts is that straining to them?

Did I read that right, or am I going crazy, because I think he said that creating accounts puts a strain on them.

Here's an idea, DON'T MAKE US CREATE NEW ACCOUNTS FOR THE GAME!

I believe by accounts he means they have to make a spot on their servers for you to be able to play which in turn means they have to give you some of their bandwidth and all the other things associated with such a thing.

OT: I'm buying it day one, it might even be my first midnight release pick up, so I am not really affected by this.

The flaw with that logic is that BF3 uses P2P.

Actually Battlefield servers are dedicated so they are EA's servers.