Sony Won't Approve Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer Promos

[Grey Day for Elcia]

LOL

EA says something people don't agree with: "EA is shit! You can't trust them!"

EA says something people agree with: "EA must be telling the truth. Booo, Sony!"

Oh internet forums, you so cute.

 

[Strazdas]

Sony is usually the one allowing promotions which microsoft dont. There probably is a good reason if Sony does not approve. They are probably the only eastern company that hasnt shat on everyone yet.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

Inb4 Shoulda got it on the PC. (because you should have you dirty console scrubs)

I think I'll skip it up, because of Origin... And the fact all of my characters from the past 2 games have been on Xbox.

Fun Fact- Mass Effect 1 was originally a Xbox 360 exclusive.

Fun Fact- I was kidding (Also the PC port was much better )

And you could always use a save converter to switch up your saves.. but if Origin is a deal breaker then fair enough.

 

[HeatproofShAdOw]

Wow, Sony has more bad PR on something than EA! That's like... a miracle or something

 

[wooty]

Sooooo, I'll just have to play the game then?

TERRIBLE!! How dare they force me to play the game just the same way I always have been.

 

[Sean Deli]

I would be super-psyked over this as a member of a PC Master race, if not for the fact that ME3 Multiplayer does not allow me to finish even a single silver-match without disconnecting all my teammates or myself.
Getting massive disconnects and I am literally stranded to only playing matches I generate myself (and it is a very stupid grind trying to solo a Silver, given that even a rag-tag team of 4 can do it like 4 times faster)

I believe several X-Box owners reported the same thing.

So PS3 owners - treasure what you do have, which is a stable connection to EA-servers.
It's worth all the bonus weekends in the world...

 

[Griffolion]

It's so fantastic up here on my PC pedestal.

I kid, I kid. Sony really are stupid sometimes. Just let the people play!

 

[Vitor Vieira]

Its really a silly move for Sony not to allow the promotional weekend. But EA announced that the first dlc pack would come to xbox live earlier than to the Playstation Network. This can be sony´s way to "tell them" they didn´t like that move. But i guess they are only harming they´re own users with this ...

 

[verdant monkai]

He's right its free, but I'll stick with xbox anyway

 

[elcamino41383]

I think its BS that Bioware said "The multiplayer won't have any affect on the outcome of the main story." Yet my galaxy readiness never moved in game unless I did some multiplayer.

To clarify, the galactic readiness was always, in fact, meant to reflect multiplayer play. It doesn't reflect how close you are to the "best ending"(which is almost identical to all other endings and just as shit as them as well), but rather multiplies your war asset value by the % displayed (50 if you don't play any multiplayer).

What bioware meant was, that if you complete almost all sidequests and get most of the war assets it is possible to get double what is required to fill the war asset bar, thus allowing you to get all endings without playing any multiplayer. Multiplayer is just an alternative to side-questing in this regard.

For me, I only needed to play one or two matches to max my war asset bar and get the "best" ending.

I see, but it still doesn't change the fact I just may as well wait for the "extended end" DLC for summer and play other games. Or the fact that my system keeps freezing when I actually want to play multiplayer some.

 

[Epona]

And I still have a sony fanboy friend who keeps telling me PSN is better than live

When you make the direct comparison to PSN. Is it really a free weekend when Live isn't free?

 

[Darkmantle]

And I still have a sony fanboy friend who keeps telling me PSN is better than live

When you make the direct comparison to PSN. Is it really a free weekend when Live isn't free?

it's not a free weekend, its a double XP weekend.

 

[Absolutionis]

When EA's arrogance causes them to bad-mouth Steam for being too restrictive, people sided with Steam.
When EA's arrogance causes them to bad-mouth Sony for being too restrictive, people side with XBox.

This is fanboyism.

This whole stunt is likely EA just trying to get special privileges while Valve and Sony simply tell them to get in line.

Still waiting for Mass Effect 3 to be available on PC for a normal price without Origin.

 

[Lucem712]

I feel like there is something EA/BioWare is not tellin' us. I've never seen Sony block MP events; COD, RDR, and GTA had no problem running XP events. It says they are trying to reach a compromise, maybe there's something collecting data and Sony doesn't want to compromise their users/network. Or something else that Sony isn't comfortable with.

 

[Absolutionis]

I feel like there is something EA/BioWare is not tellin' us. I've never seen Sony block MP events; COD, RDR, and GTA had no problem running XP events. It says they are trying to reach a compromise, maybe there's something collecting data and Sony doesn't want to compromise their users/network. Or something else that Sony isn't comfortable with.

Likewise, I've never seen Steam be unfair towards DLC, but EA whined about it anyways.

EA wants preferential treatment.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

I play it on the PS3 and I hope they get something worked out, because I actually like the multiplayer (which is rare for me, I'm not much of a multiplayer person) and it would be fun to be part of the events.

No rage about it though. It's some contractual hang up I'm sure, something the lawyers get to argue about. /shrug.

 

[Zom-B]

3: MASS EFFECT NEVER NEEDED MUTLIPLAYER

3: The fact that most people have stuck with Mass Effect 3 BECAUSE of the multiplayer these days refutes your argument.

Or it kind of proves that Bioware went off the rails when it took it's deep RPG experience with a rabid fanbase and basically pissed a lot of them off and made a lot more of them feel that the third entrant in the trilogy of games is only worth replaying because of a multiplayer mode that has nothing to do with the main story, aside from tangentially.

It's the same thing as adding multiplayer to any single player, story based experience. It's either an admittance of defeat that a game can't be successful unless legions of teenagers can curse each other out online in some banal derivative of either team deathmatch or capture the flag, or a business strategy designed to keep gamers paying for DLC in the form of maps, weapons, and whatever other crap they can get people to shell money out for.

Any way you slice it, it makes single player story driven games look undesirable from the publisher's standpoint.

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

3) never mind the PS3's hardware is more then capable of running PS2 games on its own and could probably still run PS2 games with a few tweaks to the coding.

Sorry, had to jump in here. Firstly, no it isn't capable of running PS2 games because it would need to perfectly emulate the PS2 in software. The PS3 isn't fast enough to do that.

Secondly, "a few tweaks to the coding" - are you serious with this? I can tell you're not an engineer to simply think that to get a piece of software running on a totally different piece of hardware involves "a few tweaks to the coding". If you replace that phrase with "with a total rewrite of the software", then fair enough. Do you have any idea how expensive it would be for a developer to rewrite one of their PS2 games to convert it into a PS3 game? Extremely expensive. And for what? The 4 people that might bother to pay for it?

You need to be more realistic about hardware and software before throwing comments like that around.

 

[Lunar Templar]

3) never mind the PS3's hardware is more then capable of running PS2 games on its own and could probably still run PS2 games with a few tweaks to the coding.

Sorry, had to jump in here. Firstly, no it isn't capable of running PS2 games because it would need to perfectly emulate the PS2 in software. The PS3 isn't fast enough to do that.

not jumping into anything, closer to necroing at this point.

Secondly, "a few tweaks to the coding" - are you serious with this? I can tell you're not an engineer to simply think that to get a piece of software running on a totally different piece of hardware involves "a few tweaks to the coding". If you replace that phrase with "with a total rewrite of the software", then fair enough. Do you have any idea how expensive it would be for a developer to rewrite one of their PS2 games to convert it into a PS3 game? Extremely expensive. And for what? The 4 people that might bother to pay for it?

and yet, they are converting PS2 games en mass, tech non-sense aside, your right, I'm not an engineer, not up on how all that shit works, and i largely don't care. only reason I'm still pissed about this, even now with my PS2 the only console worthy of remaining in my possession, is because they took away the reverse compatibility purely to make people pay for games they already, in all likely hood, owned. fuck.that.shit.

You need to be more realistic about hardware and software before throwing comments like that around.

nope, by my understanding the PS3 has better hardware, so it was logical to assume the 'built in PS2 emulator costing to much' was a flimsy cop out.