Battlefield 3 Will "Probably" Use Online Pass

[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.

 

[Thyunda]

I already pay for Xbox LIVE...I kinda don't want to pay twice for the same thing.

 

[MagicMouse]

I have no love for game re-salers, but I also think games are overpriced and that the publishers don't need to be payed twice....

I'm not sure how I fell about this =/

 

[OldNewNewOld]

And as always, they stupid gamer community will just ***** a bit about it and still buy everything.

Why shouldn't the publisher abuse such a stupid crowd.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Why shouldn't the publisher abuse such a stupid crowd.

Really?

Really.

Because, as a group, as a whole, may behave stupid, that somehow excuses abuse(which I'm not saying this is)?

Please try to word things better. Kthanks

 

[Catalyst6]

If they do stuff like this, there should be an option to simply buy the multiplayer or single player games separately.

You can do that already. You just have to buy it used and not buy the online pass!

OT:
From the back room at Best Buy:

Wii: Yeah, that kind of sucks, but at least you guys get to actually play multiplayer games without using the same screen.

Xbox: This is kind of really annoying. Hell, I *already* pay for my online. Why should I have to drop even more for this?

PS3: We're used to playing online for free, and you drop this on us? We don't even have that great of a framework for the online to begin with! At least make it free.

Xbox: Wait, wait, guys, I'm getting a text from PC. He says... "Welcome to the party. Act real nice and we might even let you have dedicated servers". Jeeze, what a jerk.

 

[DarthSka]

So they are actually going to get paid for their product? What jerks! But seriously, if they're paying to keep up servers for people to play on, used-game buyers shouldn't be able to just play on it for free. Approval, it has mine.

 

[Katana314]

Another text from PC: He says... "If you don't like paying for games, you could always get them for free. And I don't mean piracy. [http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/06/free-steam-games/]"

I'm sorry that the waiters serving you (Microsoft, Sony) are slow to that bandwagon.

 

[Rad Party God]

Well, considering all the freebies one can get with Bad Company 2 for $30 (PC version), it doesn't sound so outrageous to me, heck, BC2 doesn't charge anything for new map packs and last time I checked, MW2 and Blops charges $15 for each map pack.

Paying extra $10 for the privilege of playing online, plus getting all of the map packs for free doesn't sound too expensive to me.

 

[Alma Mare]

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.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

Good.

A lot of used-game resellers are pretty unethical and the whole system of reselling used games really sucks for developers. That's especially true of multiplayer games where the company actually needs to pay for servers (not to mention the fact that development will probably continue on the game for patches and possibly new content). People who are buying it preowned aren't just getting it without paying the developer anything, they're getting it and actually costing the developer money.

Also, I'm generally in favor of any additional costs like this just so we can crush the spirits of the whiners who mysteriously feel entitled to any content that costs money beyond the initial price (all of the profoundly illogical people who constantly complain about DLC for instance).

 

[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.

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

Support the developers and publishers. Buy new.

I agree with this. I buy all my games new (who doesn't like that new game smell?).

Buying a game used and being able to play its multiplayer like someone who bought it new is like going to see a movie with a ticket from yesterday.

There should be no reason to complain about online passes when the money for multiplayer passes is used to maintain the servers and things that keep the game online. Plus if you pay for a used copy at half the price of new, and pay $10 more for a pass, and you still save 30-40%, why are you complaining?

 

[Unholykrumpet]

I don't have a problem with it...but their given reason is bullshit. Seriously, the number of users will never exceed the number of people that buy the game (piracy not taken into account). Therefore, the same number will be playing. It just means that someone who bought it gave up their spot to someone that didn't buy it. At least be honest and say "it's against piracy and to get more money to develop DLC and new titles". I'd respect that more than anything.

Edit:

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.

This is the reason they are supposed to make "good" games, or introduce DLC for a game though...to keep people playing their game rather than reselling it and playing something else.

I've never sold anything (I sort of have a hoarding tendency with my old games...all the way to my regular nintendo...even Bomberman for 360 (ew)), and the thought of asking for money from gamestop or game xchange or x place is hard to imagine. But, I can't blame people who do.

 

[Littlee300]

I am not going to buy your game. Stop persuading me not to!

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

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, which means that "their servers" are actually our servers, or specifically our 360s, PS3s and PCs. And I agree with what Irridium was saying; get rid of the damned accounts if that's really what's straining them so much. You wanna know how much set-up I had to do to get into MW2 on my PC? I started it up. You wanna know how much set-up I had to do to get into the game on the 360 where my friends play? I started it up. No sign-up bullshit, no accounts, just put the damn game in the damn system and start fucking playing.

This is the kinda bullshit that turned me off with Dragon Age. I shouldn't be getting hassled to create an online account to play a single-player game. And I especially hate how EVERY developer is slowly but surely moving towards that trend, to the point where I'm probably gonna end-up with 50+ accounts all for different companies.

Fuck it. Fuck it all. I'm so sick of EA and their "We hate the used sales" whining.

 

[C95J]

I like the pass system, but then again I buy all my games new anyway :3

 

[teebeeohh]

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.