Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer Requires Online Pass

[DustyDrB]

Who cares about the multiplayer anyway? I'll just sell my Online Pass. Well, unless there are single-player bonuses tied to it as well.

There are. If you play these side missions, it increases your "Galaxy prepared" meter in the single player, which has to do with how many people will live, or something like that.

OT: Here's an idea: You allow the people to play the multiplayer secondhand, but if they don't put in a code, you sell ad space in the loading screens?

Common: New players don't have to bother, used players still get to play the game, and the company gets revenue from ads to pay for server upkeep because there will always be new people selling their games, and new players coming in.

You sure? Remember the side missions that were available with the online pass last time? There was Zaeed, but there was also that one where you just walk around on the planet where the original Normandy crashed. I found that one boring and kind of cheesy with the flashbacks (though Pressley's journal was a nice touch).

I do hate how this "Galactic Readiness" thing sounds. It basically seems like a meter that eventually says "OK, you've done enough to get the good ending now". I'd rather the full consequence of my choices to be more ambiguous until the end, even if it means some of them come back to haunt me.

 

[MercurySteam]

Cause I'm preordering, I don't really have an issue. I'll probably hardly play the MP anyway.

I'm not even paying an extra $10, I'm just entering a code worth $10 (annoying I know, but I don't have much other choice).

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Who cares about the multiplayer anyway? I'll just sell my Online Pass. Well, unless there are single-player bonuses tied to it as well.

There are. If you play these side missions, it increases your "Galaxy prepared" meter in the single player, which has to do with how many people will live, or something like that.

OT: Here's an idea: You allow the people to play the multiplayer secondhand, but if they don't put in a code, you sell ad space in the loading screens?

Common: New players don't have to bother, used players still get to play the game, and the company gets revenue from ads to pay for server upkeep because there will always be new people selling their games, and new players coming in.

You sure? Remember the side missions that were available with the online pass last time? There was Zaeed, but there was also that one where you just walk around on the planet where the original Normandy crashed. I found that one boring and kind of cheesy with the flashbacks (though Pressley's journal was a nice touch).

I do hate how this "Galactic Readiness" thing sounds. It basically seems like a meter that eventually says "OK, you've done enough to get the good ending now". I'd rather the full consequence of my choices to be more ambiguous until the end, even if it means some of them come back to haunt me.

Like most RPGs I play, I'm going to play the first time and make all my mistakes then. Then the second time around, I'll look at a guide or whatever to get the ultra-nice, mega good, candy coated ending. But I agree. The "Galactic Readiness" thing sounds silly.

 

[Catchy Slogan]

But I won't have anyone to play it with!



[sub][sub][sub]...I'm so alone...[/sub][/sub][/sub]

On topic; EA can eat a big bag full of dicks. The reasons for which have been said before and said very well.

Spoiler

Cheer up, you're not alone.

:'D

It's what I've always wanted! And it's been with me all this time!

 

[Koroviev]

I like that they lock the most unnecessary part of the game. So I still feel no pressure to buy new.

Same here. I'll buy the base game for dirt cheap and pony up a little more for the complete game that will inevitably arrive some time down the line.

 

[Koroviev]

Haters, I direct you to this: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/project-ten-dollar

The discussion of fixing the problems is nice, but crucial is the fact that there is an extremely reasonable justification for charging this and that justification isn't just "we can totally get away with screwing customers more".

I think you missed the end point of that episode, then, dear reader. It says you should not try to hurt the consumer, you should try to get around Gamestop. There is a difference. A big difference. What this is, is charging all people who got an item second hand.

Which, as I believe you have pointed out many a time, is a violation of the First-Sale Doctrine. I have the right to transfer my property intact. If I do so, then I relinquish my right to the use of said property. I find it disquieting that so many people believe that invoking this right is somehow immoral. Is the marketing really that good? I'd list the other possibility, but I like my forum record clean.

 

[Koroviev]

Online passes are a great idea. If you want to pay a reduced price, you get a reduced product, and no amount of parroted Jimquisition quotes are going to convince me it's wrong.

Please explain this to me as I don't watch Jimquisition (I prefer extra credits) but what other product can you think of that you get reduced product out of it you buy used? Damaged product and reduced product are not the same thing. Cars don't count. I bought a car used at a reduced price and it was in better condition then when the previous owner had bought it new aside form slight damage (I.E. scratches).


On that note, I'm buying this new simply because I like bioware, and since I think ME should be single-player I'm likely going to give away my online passcode to one of those people who would prefer to pay a sensible amount of money for the game.

One should also keep in mind that the "damage" to used games is artificial. The codes do not "wear out." They are simply set to self-destruct. It's one thing when a product develops signs of wear from actual use, but something entirely different when said product is intentionally damaged by the manufacturer. And it is not the used buyer who is most harmed by this decision, but the new buyer. I would be pretty hard-pressed to sell a book or a movie that, if sold to another person in an entirely legal transaction between consumers, would detect this shift in ownership and suddenly "lose" a chapter, scene, etc.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Very true. It is not like people have to play the game the second it comes out, or else they die. I usually pick up games a month or two after release as it is just due to time constraints. I think people just really want to hate everything involved with EA, regardless if it is common practice with almost every other company, as well.

Even things not involved with EA. In the thread about Arkham Asylum having content cut from used titles, people were bitching about EA, because that's totally a game published by EA.

It really shows how little they know about the things they're whining about.

 

[Bostur]

I find myself wondering if people who ask what other products suffer from reduced functionality if they're purchased used are the same people who say that videogames aren't like other products because they're not a physical "thing" and therefore copying and giving them away freely doesn't cause any harm because nobody's actually losing anything. Piracy ain't stealing, and all that.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect consumers to have the right to treat digital products differently, but not publishers and retailers. Digital products are different, but it's a two-way street.

I don't think it is the same people, not all of us anyway ;-)

Anyway I'm not allowed to comment on your piracy argument here, but I prefer to have the rules of how to handle intellectual property governed by governments, and not large corporations.

Software is a pretty unique case among virtual products. You don't see these kinds of limitations imposed on movies or music, even though it certainly would be possible to do so. Copyright is meant to make virtual things similar to physical things on the market, so that they can be traded freely. That is the tradeoff of publishing, some control is lost in return for being able to profit on the work.

Consumers have to treat digital things differently, thats not a right thats a requirement and a disadvantage compared to physical products. That is the tradeoff of the consumer.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

Man they can kiss the darkest part of my lily white arse!

I'm getting sick of this caste system companies seem to be enforcing on gamers. "You can only get this map/dude if you pre-order. You can only get the pimped out megagun if you hop online and sign up to buy our other shit."

The once-off code I don't mind, but all the other stuff just seems like a way to squeeze extra $ off loyal punters.

 

[CleverCover]

Already knew this, but now it means I have to give up the online pass to my brother...and play on his xbox whenever I feel like going online. Damn...

 

[oblivion328]

Just EA's usual bullshit. Of course, being a fan of the series and a number of BioWare's other games, I will be buying ME3 new, probably on day of release. To be honest, I may very well never touch the multiplayer though. It sounds like it's just something EA forced them to tack onto a game that doesn't need it, unnecessarily delaying its release in the process.

 

[Timberwolf0924]

I'm glad they're doing this. Stop being a cheep ass and buy the game new or stop bitching about it

Not everyone can buy the game new. That's the problem. If you don't have the money you will have to wait nearly 5 months for the game. Then you find out you need to spend even more money.

OT: I wish publishers and developers would stop doing this. It's really going to hurt the second hand game market.

Then either get a job, and if you can't get one, then why are you buying video games instead of saving money. "oh but I play games to get away from the stress of life" oh well, money is one of those, spending $80.00 on a game isn't going to make that better. If you 'just have' to have the game, then buy it new. I really hope they charge $10.00 to get online play if you buy it used. That way when you get home after saving $5.00 you realize you could've saved money by buying new.

 

[FEichinger]

I notice that it doesn't say anything about buying an online pass for the PC.

Struck me as well. It is likely to mean "You won't need it, cause you will be forced to buy through Origin in the first place" ... And they will lose another sale, if they pull that one ...

 

[GonzoGamer]

Well, they just lost a purchase. I would have bought it brand new. Now im not buying it at all.

Not to ***** or anything, im just saying. I put my money where my mouth is and this wont be different.

Good for you.
I too have taken a hard stance on this as well. I don't mind if they have pre-order or new purchase bonus items or things like that for people. But one way for them to make sure I don't buy a game new is to hide game content (single player or multiplayer) behind one of these schemes.

What I've found when I do get to play those titles (either by renting or if a friend bought it) is that I'm not missing much. They don't seem to do this crap with the really good games.
I'm starting to think that these schemes are actually a sign of desperation.
At any rate, I've saved some money. I should be grateful but I'm not.

 

[nonl33t m4st3r]

Eh, it's free with the game I was willing to pay full price for anyway. I just hope they do what they did with the Cerberus Network and add joke headlines every few days.

 

[Davlar]

So we have EA that makes you get all games new and we have CDprojekt that removes DRM from their own game. I buy from both new but I know which one I support!