Battlefield 3, Mass Effect 3 MP Will Require Online Pass

[DarkBlue21]

You called Battlelog Lame. First of all, they went with browser based battle log because it's the better choice. It's a fully functional, great working service provided for free. As I already explained, it also allows it to be updated and maintained without having to mess with the game itself. It's by far the best server browser/match making set up I've ever had the pleasure of playing (and I've pretty much played everything worth playing on the PC for past 15+ years.)

2nd, you're advocating for a monopoly. I have steam, we all like steam, but competition is one of the most nessesary parts of an economy. And you act as if origin is a ton of milicious files. It's a couple hundred MB and you can set it to not start up at launch from the get-go. It has no adverse effects on a system.

Also, if you hate their requirement to buy an online key unique to the user, you should hate PC gaming in general. If I buy Left4Dead on steam brand new for 49.99 but my wife and kid want to play with me, I have to buy TWO more copies of the same exact game(That's over $150 for one household to play 1 game). Where if I bought it on a console like Xbox, I could do 4 players on 1 game disk. So your hatred for EA's new online key requirements is both unwarranted and over exaggerated.

3rd, "Did *okay* in the beta" sounds like a synonym for "I'm a baddy"

Alright, I'll retract my statement about battlelog since it has the potential to be great.

Secondly, I dislike Origin because of the ToS allowing EA to "spy" on what I do. If at the very least, make Origin optional, give consumer the ability to choose between Origin, Steam, or neither. What I really want is the good old days were I don't need Origin or Steam, but we all know that isn't going to happen. lol

Thirdly, I love PC gaming, but your example is kind of flawed. You're talking about playing Co-op, it's not as if that one game disk for Xbox is allowing you and your friend miles away play with you. But don't get me wrong, I love split-screen. Also, I was talking about passing it down to a family member, I did not mean for us to play together.

And I'm not going to pretend that I was bad ass in that game because I wasn't, I wasn't the best nor was I the weakest, I've had my moments of being the top players, and my moments of being the bottom players. I consider myself as being average, plus the fact that I didn't play very much to actually start getting better. I'm guessing you consider yourself as one of the top players because you got a lot kills huh?

 

[P0LYGL0T]

[citation][nom]dane332[/nom]The difference is that the second person's money did not go to EA , Bioware, and anyone else related to production and distribution of the game.The only person who benefits would be the guy who sold the game used, or gamestop.[/citation]

That's kind of the point. When I purchase something with my money, it becomes mine, no longer the retailers or the publisher's copy of the game -- it's an exchange (something for something) or basic economics, private-property 101 aka common sense, which is something EA clearly lacks.

My money is no one buys this "online-pass" garbage, and they'll be left wondering why no one is playing online -- of course, they'll blame the internet, as always.

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]Yuka[/nom]"because, after all, they get absolutely nothing from second-hand sales"Oh, come on! It's not like the online servers are going to get an additional person per used/resold game! Besides, they already got 100% value from the first buyer (and overpriced, that is).This thing is a totally stupid money milking strategy of people by the publishers.Now, if they let the online part of the game with the old online pass code active and independent from the "offline"/SP still playable, I'm all in for that. So, you just sell the "offline" part of it and continue to rock online. I really doubt it's that way though.Cheers![/citation]


100% agree , and i'd like to further say thst kevin throws this out in parenthesis like the game company is entitleed to something for second hand sales wich is horse shit. in the US , there is a law regarding rights to resale, and those laws don't include fincial compensation going to the original manufature/publisher. Im really waiting for some court or state to birng this under handed practice to the courts. this lock out of MP on used copies is Screwing with second hand sales in more ways than one.

 

[m0th2]

So basically they are just giving you more motive to illegally download the game and then just pay a small fee and get multiplayer access.

 

[dontknownotsure]

chill, just wait for pirate server when official one went dead 10 yrs later

 

[paramania]

[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]100% agree , and i'd like to further say thst kevin throws this out in parenthesis like the game company is entitleed to something for second hand sales wich is horse shit. in the US , there is a law regarding rights to resale, and those laws don't include fincial compensation going to the original manufature/publisher. Im really waiting for some court or state to birng this under handed practice to the courts. this lock out of MP on used copies is Screwing with second hand sales in more ways than one.[/citation]

I agree that this is bollocks. This is like saying that car manufacturers should be able to charge a fee to those who buy their car second hand because they are getting use out of it.

In fact that is a perfect analogy - as second hand buyers may still buy new parts from the manufacturer - in the same way that second hand game buyers ALREADY HAVE TO re-BUY ANY DLC!!!

This, in my eyes, is a particular way in which EA hope to bias sales of new "copies" at launch. If people think it is not going to be worth buying a game second hand then more will either: (a) not buy it ever; or (b) will just buy it new.

In my eyes most of this is about EA boosting sales figures -- as we all know that the "super-AAA" titles now get media coverage just like film/movie releases do.

It is logically a BS argument to say they NEED the money! (And here: no, I don't mean that games should have to be free or dirt cheap - I appreciate there are costs in producing any product - some costs are justified - some are not, yada, yada, yada...) What I mean is that they don't need the money from *from second hand sales*, where, as others pointed out, there is *no* difference if a game costs £/$/Euros 100 and then gets re-sold 10, 100 or 1000 times!

The only difference to there servers and systems from resales are what? Way less than 1 meg of data per gamer-card for stat and achievement monitoring. There is no real-world difference here. Just greed.

In fact as I mentioned the account-tied DLC trend we have seen in recent years allows them to charge twice for a game anyway. And let us not forget that it is a trend in which EA have been a dominant market leader.


SUMMARY: If I buy a game second hand I should not pay for online access when I already will have to buy all the DLC map packs anyway.
Personally I feel like this is them just taking the piss.


Rant over.

 

[Guest]

I don't see why the people who are raging specifically at EA have a problem with this since Steam does the exact same thing. You have game on Steam? Want to give it to a friend? Sorry, Steam won't let you. Only choice is to give them your account. If you're going to be hating on companies trying to destroy the second hand market, at the very least do it to all of them.

 

[airborne11b]

[citation][nom]DarkBlue21[/nom]Alright, I'll retract my statement about battlelog since it has the potential to be great.[/citation]

I don't mind game companies looking into computers. As long as you're not doing anything wrong (Pirating, child porn, hacking, aimbot, etc) you shouldn't have anything to worry about. I haven't read anything into what info EA origin can get from computers, but I'm all for game companies doing things to prevent pirating and hacking.

I'm talking about Co-Op too. If I wanted to play a Co-Op game like Left 4 dead, PC requires 2-4 copies to be bought. Xbox requires 1. My example is not flawed. Back in the day 1 CD was enough to do LANs (As this fits what you were talking about with same-house gameplay). 99% of AAA games over the past 5-8 years require you to connect online to some service or have unique CD key registrations to get "online accounts" to play together.

So where an Xbox game can play 4 people on 1 disk, PC games now cost 4x as much to get the same co-op gameplay experience. I don't mind supporting PC game developers, which is why I buy all my games. But it does hurt the wallet when you're a person like me who ends up buying 2-3 copies of every multiplayer game that comes out.

Ya I'm pro.

 

[tomfreak]

I bought a car, now i sell it to my someone @ second hand price. But I have to pay GeneralMotor as well? wtf logic is this? lol

 

[Guest]

ahh poor developers get absolutely nothing from used copy sales! they make a copy of a game to be sold, once that copy is sold it is none of their bloody business what happens to it. why should they be paid over and over for the same copy? they have also done this on fifa 12 so i expect this will be standard practice in the near future

 

[paramania]

[citation][nom]paramania[/nom]SUMMARY: If I buy a game second hand I should not pay for online access when I already will have to buy all the DLC map packs anyway. Personally I feel like this is them just taking the piss. Rant over.[/citation]

Before anyone beats me to it: I understand that e.g. a monthly MMORPG charge is different -- you pay less upfront for the game than you would "normally" because that is the nature of the beast, and also for reasons relating to the nature of how those games are played/supported/updated etc.

And seriously, *if* EA actually had issues funding servers over a long period of time they would, and SHOULD, adopt that strategy -- if there was any truth in their arguments.

Indeed, it has just occurred to me that they will NOT introduce PAYG/monthly charges as that would REALLY PISS PEOPLE OFF! It would be a PR disaster and would no doubt damage initial sales as the genre-split means that players of e.g. FPS games aren't really mentally primed to pay for server access in the same way that the analogous MMORPG players are. (I know that those two groups are not mutually exclusive either.)

Basically charging second hand buyers is like putting an averaged out "monthly fee" on the online play for their games. From market research data or maybe by monitoring of the number of accounts tied to a game disc (Can this be done? Is it or something similar done? I don't know -- please correct me here) then they already know that on average an XBox 360 FPS AAA-title is re-sold 2.46 times in the US and Canada.

Now I just made that up, but be sure that EA have that sort of data -- I would if I were them. It is trivial to get, and key to them determining the next part of the equation -- namely from this (and average DLC download revenue for the title over its life-span when resold) a reasonable fee to charge in order to not too negatively impact the second-hand sales of their games.

All in all it is a BACKDOOR method to get us to pay more and more. Although the biggest losers here might be the second-hand retailers in the short/medium term particularly. Nice one EA! Screw the little guy (at least relatively speaking) who actually employs people in the average town and city.

Interestingly I wonder if EA have accounted for any unintended consequences?
The average number of re-sales of these games might now plummet. Why would I sell or trade-in a title that someone else has to fork out another £/$5 to properly be able to play -- on top of what they already have had to pay me? They wont. Plus they already have to buy all the DLC like map packs and game modes etc for things like COD/BF.
So... they'll offer me at least that £/$5 (making the fair assumption that a reasonable volume of supply and demand is maintained for a second-hand AAA title).

It then gets to the point where I may as well not bother re-selling a title because I may get some use out of it one rainy day a few years later -- instead of trading it in for my cut of the £/$ 15 second hand retail value -- of which I will now get only say half of what I would have had before -- as the retailer and the second-hand buyer also need to be satisfied with the overall deal too.

Oh, and just out of interest how does Steam factor in? No re-sales = No income to fund those poor overworked little servers.

Hmm. I think that proves it well enough for me. This truly is a backdoor way to get "us" as a collective to pay more. It is a stealth-tax type approach -- once we are used to this EA will add another layer -- like monthly fees.

I'm not at all a conspiracy theorist type of person -- but nothing like this that EA does truly surprises me.
It pisses me off. But I'll never be surprised.

 

[toxin440]

Pro tip: you are doing it wrong EA. (you've been doing it wrong for almost 10 years)

I love PC gaming, I really really do. The death of PC gaming will not be from people being dis-interested, but from greedy companies like this. Yes, they DO have a right to make profit, but the limit is how much crap can you get away with? EA shows everyone almost on a daily basis that they are greedy assholes, and consumers just keep buying it. Even if games like this cost 50 million dollars over 2 years to design and create, CoD and all the others gross hundreds of millions on a single game, not to mention DLC. (I think Black ops hit something like 650 million dollars in gross sales)

I fully understand why people pirate games and I can't say I blame them when a company constantly says "you need to pay more". I and MANY others are perfectly happy to pay for our software and entertainment, but stop with the rape please.

The concept of ownership is being eroded in this country, I buy a game for 60 bucks but it's not really mine, I have to jump through 100 anti-piracy hoops, I can't mod the game for fun and learning, I can't even sell it because EA destroys the license to play 2nd hand. F that.

The tighter the grip is from the game makers, RIAA, MPAA... the more they are going to lose. It would truly shock them if they realized relax all the crap they have been putting on us for years. You will always have pirates (even if you sell a song for a penny) but the industry has been turning away people who are perfectly willing to pay because they (the corporations) have no f'in clue.

 

[SlickyFats]

I bought an EA coffee table at a garage sale. I was only allowed to look at it, if I want to put a cup on it I had to pay a little extra.....that system only works with games I guess.

 

[quangluu96]

Wow.....greedy, they know Battlefield 3 will have alot of players, they took the advantages to make money o.0?

 

[reggieray]

I saw this coming and when your console gives up the ghost you will have to fork out more cash to continue playing your game. Boycott this greedy crap.

 

[reggieray]

Class action lawsuit is in order.

 

[reggieray]

Both are off my buy list now, PC. I usually play through a game and half the time give it for free to my nephew after all I did buy and pay for it so it is mine, right? Not according to these greedy hacks. Again, these games will not be bought by me, FU EA.

 

[reggieray]

[citation][nom]dane332[/nom]The difference is that the second person's money did not go to EA , Bioware, and anyone else related to production and distribution of the game.The only person who benefits would be the guy who sold the game used, or gamestop.[/citation]
So I guess this should apply to movies, music CDs and books? Then where will that end, cars TVs and stereos.

 

[leper84]

[citation][nom]gaborbarla[/nom]Capitalism never fails to amaze me. :-O[/citation]

Capitalism means lower prices. Corporatism means blind money lust. In a true free market it would be perfectly legal to crack this game to run on third party servers and to install third party dlc (ala CS); or to use it second hand without the blessing or tribute to EA.

If you wanted an accessory for your car (DLC) are you forced back to the stealership, or can you go on amazon and get it on the cheap? Online play is a service from the manufacturer, such as an extended warranty is a service. Are you forced back to the manufacturer to buy an extended warranty, or can you obtain that service from a third party? Just so happens in this case the third party is the community and the cost is free. Well in true capitalism, that would be the market EA would have to legally compete with.

This type of crap can't go on forever though. Even in a manipulated market there will be a correction. Just like the music industry crashed cause people wouldn't pay $20 for crap CD's the game industry will liquidate crap EA (and others) are pulling with games.

 

[reggieray]

[citation][nom]p0lygl0t[/nom]That's kind of the point. When I purchase something with my money, it becomes mine, no longer the retailers or the publisher's copy of the game -- it's an exchange (something for something) or basic economics, private-property 101 aka common sense, which is something EA clearly lacks.My money is no one buys this "online-pass" garbage, and they'll be left wondering why no one is playing online -- of course, they'll blame the internet, as always.[/citation]
No EA will blame the PC gamers for losing console sales.

 

[shin0bi272]

meh already bought bf3 on origin and dont plan on playing me3's stupid ass multiplayer component. Mass Effect isnt about multiplayer and its just bioware trying to make more money.

 

[schmich]

[citation][nom]ben850[/nom]There's still only one person on per disk. Not like it's putting any extra strain on the servers..[/citation]
And they dont pay for the actual game servers. Thats for others to rent -.-

 

[bokuden]

Why's this even a story at this point? Every other online-capable game uses this system, why the manufactured nerdrage?

 

[hetneo]

Here's one explanation for all you who don't understand the problem here and just cry about it.

When you buy a game you don't actually buy it or own it as some other product like car, phone or w/e. You are buying so called "limited nontransferable licence". You basically don't buy game, but right to play it. At the moment when you install game you agree on those conditions by clicking Yes, I Agree or w/e on screen with EULA. This is in it self a different kind of problem than what this article is about so I will not delve on it and just say that it's a bit wrong.

If you think that you are entitled to resell licence, you are wrong. You have already waved that right by agreeing to the EULA.

 

[rad666]

I will never use ME3's multiplayer mode, since I can't stand multiplayer, so I will never have to use the "online pass" it comes with. Thus, when I go to sell it on eBay (assuming it's not on Steam and I have to pick it up retail), I'll be able to say it has an unused online pass, incidentally, just like I did with my ME2 since I never activated the "Cerberus Network" BS it came with...