Battlefield 3 needs an online pass, unsurprisingly.

[Atmos Duality]

The Online Pass is a measure to fight arbitrage. Combine that with the continued "shepherding" of the playerbase onto proprietary servers (instead of allowing for local dedicated servers) and you have a system that lets the publisher better control their customers' spending habits.

This doesn't mean I should be happy about it. Generally speaking I do buy new games, but only after researching them for schemes I don't want to support.

Consequently, I don't buy many new games these days, but then again there isn't as much that appeals to me anymore.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

It's purely to combat used game sales. Developers get nothing at all from them, and game stores (i.e. Gamestop) make a killing off of them, and don't even give the devs a portion. This way, they at least get something out of the deal, although it's disappointing that the gamers are the ones suffering.

Christ, this argument again?

Did they, or did they not, make money when the game was sold the first time?

Yes. Yes they did.

Pretty much every item is sold used, and the people who created it see no money from it. None. This is no different legally or ethically. So please, let's not create a guilt trip about the "poor devs".

 

[Irridium]

It's the old story of taking away instead of giving something extra. They'll eventually figure it out.

This is EA.

They'll replace it with something just as awful and stupid.

And the reason for Battlefield 3's online pass is stupid as hell. Servers cost money, and apparently new users add more slots on servers. They don't seem to realize that when one sells their copy, they can no longer play on the server, and are essentially giving their place away to someone else. The spot was paid for by the first customer, who then uses it how he pleases.

Nothing new is being made when a used buyer signs on. They're using the space of the previous owner, who will no longer play.

The only way I can see used buyers making new accounts is them making new EA accounts. In which case, if that's so financially straining on the second largest publisher in the world, they should stop making people make EA accounts to play.

 

[Omnific One]

It's the old story of taking away instead of giving something extra. They'll eventually figure it out.

This is EA.

They'll replace it with something just as awful and stupid.

And the reason for Battlefield 3's online pass is stupid as hell. Servers cost money, and apparently new users add more slots on servers. They don't seem to realize that when one sells their copy, they can no longer play on the server, and are essentially giving their place away to someone else. The spot was paid for by the first customer, who then uses it how he pleases.

Nothing new is being made when a used buyer signs on. They're using the space of the previous owner, who will no longer play.

The only way I can see used buyers making new accounts is them making new EA accounts. In which case, if that's so financially straining on the second largest publisher in the world, they should stop making people make EA accounts to play.

Bingo, this point needs to be broadcast to all the people who think the online pass makes sense and is fair. It's not like a CD or something where you could just rip it and sell it.

 

[DustyDrB]

I'm actually getting really annoyed at the people that complain about online passes. They're inevitable, and if you don't like them, then there are better things to do about it than complain about it on a forum. Email the company, tell them about it in a polite manner, and maybe they'll agree with you.

This is a Gaming Forum. Things like this will be discussed. Accept it and move on.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I don't buy anything used because the vast majority of used games are only ~$5 cheaper than new. Why risk a defective disk or torn up manual/packaging for so little savings?

In light of my buying habits, I can't say these online passes really bother me - but that's to be expected, right?

Anyways, mandatory install of a secondary application that's given free reign to snoop around my hard drive? That's a bigger sticking point, don't ya think? If you're going to not buy BF3, as I won't, do it for the right reasons.

 

[Loonyyy]

It's the old story of taking away instead of giving something extra. They'll eventually figure it out.

Wait, what? Aren't they in essence doing that, by giving players who buy new Multiplayer, and players who buy used are not rewarded in that way.

Don't get me wrong, I think Online passes are an unnecessary hassle, but I can see where the gaming industry is coming from when it wants to regulate used sales. And to each person saying there's a better way: Tell me what it is. I've been thinking quite a bit about this issue, and I have not yet thought of a solution which is better than the online pass, unless you count reducing the price of new games to compete. Personally, I prefer online pass to crazy install limits like BioShock or the Sims, which is another fix for the issue.

Pretty much every item is sold used, and the people who created it see no money from it. None. This is no different legally or ethically. So please, let's not create a guilt trip about the "poor devs".

I really don't get this statement. In the case of selling other things second hand, there is degradation: A used car is not worth the same as a new car, AND it is functionally differet (More mileage etc). With a game, like a CD, there is no difference between the used and the new. So when you go to EB or Gamestop and get a game, they recommend the used copy, which is identical, there's no difference between new and used but the price. And out of that, the developer gets no money. Which isn't the most sensical system. It rewards only the Gamestop or EB, and in that case, how much do they give you on your trade-ins? A lot less than the new copy is worth, and less than they sell it for, and they still get to undercut the new games, making an easy profit.

I don't think used games are immoral, but it does make sense for a developer or publisher to be concerned about the prevalence of them, since it directly impacts their bottom line. A player playing the game used is a player who has not paid the developer, and to them, that is an issue.

I'm sure there is a better alternative to the online pass. I'm personally in favour of dropping the prices of new games: squeeze the bottom line of the used game economy and make the choice between new and used more difficult. At some point, not only is the developer (Hopefully) getting more new sales, but we, the consumer, are better off, since the competition has lowered the prices. There are probably other, equally interesting solutions.

But if you want to bring up Legality and "Ethics", you might want to consider that the passes are also Legal, and "Ethical", and those "Poor Devs" have the right to charge how they want for the game, it's entirely your decision whether you choose to buy it.

Punishing not only people who buy use but people who have crappy internet connections. Then again, I think I'm in the extreme minority when it comes to having both problems. Still, the stick won't always win EA customers and I hope they see that sooner rather than later.

Not sure what you mean there: Always on DRM like that in Assassins Creed 2, and Brotherhood, Driver: San Fransisco and Silent Hunter (4 I think) punishes people with a poor internet connection. That's always on DRM. Good versions like Steam have offline modes, where the authentication is once only, or can be saved in case the connection goes offline. Bad ones like the Ubisoft one kick players with bad net out of Single Player games (Diablo 3 will use a similar system).
Online Pass is where some content "Day 1 DLC" or even a large part of the game, in this case, multiplayer, is available to only the player who buys new, through a code included in new copies. This one time key must then be bought (For around $10) by gamers who bought a second hand copy. In this case, people with crappy net aren't affected at all, as the part they're restricting is multiplayer, which is conditional on good net anyway, especially as there does not appear to be LAN support for this game. Of course, if you can't connect long enough to purchase a pass, then I think you'll have some problem with playing the multiplayer, which I found was rather keen to kick you if you were idle but for a moment.
The scheme artificially degrades the game to make second hand copies less desirable, and make the new ones more so.

 

[Murray Whitwell]

Origin and BattleLog are douchey ideas, too. Why are we still surprised that EA doesn't give a shit about ruining the user experience to make a few extra bucks? They're the reason I'm not buying BF3.
Shame, too. It looked like a perfectly average game.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

It's the old story of taking away instead of giving something extra. They'll eventually figure it out.

Wait, what? Aren't they in essence doing that, by giving players who buy new Multiplayer, and players who buy used are not rewarded in that way.

Don't get me wrong, I think Online passes are an unnecessary hassle, but I can see where the gaming industry is coming from when it wants to regulate used sales. And to each person saying there's a better way: Tell me what it is. I've been thinking quite a bit about this issue, and I have not yet thought of a solution which is better than the online pass, unless you count reducing the price of new games to compete. Personally, I prefer online pass to crazy install limits like BioShock or the Sims, which is another fix for the issue.

Pretty much every item is sold used, and the people who created it see no money from it. None. This is no different legally or ethically. So please, let's not create a guilt trip about the "poor devs".

I really don't get this statement. In the case of selling other things second hand, there is degradation: A used car is not worth the same as a new car, AND it is functionally differet (More mileage etc). With a game, like a CD, there is no difference between the used and the new. So when you go to EB or Gamestop and get a game, they recommend the used copy, which is identical, there's no difference between new and used but the price. And out of that, the developer gets no money. Which isn't the most sensical system. It rewards only the Gamestop or EB, and in that case, how much do they give you on your trade-ins? A lot less than the new copy is worth, and less than they sell it for, and they still get to undercut the new games, making an easy profit.

I don't think used games are immoral, but it does make sense for a developer or publisher to be concerned about the prevalence of them, since it directly impacts their bottom line. A player playing the game used is a player who has not paid the developer, and to them, that is an issue.

I'm sure there is a better alternative to the online pass. I'm personally in favour of dropping the prices of new games: squeeze the bottom line of the used game economy and make the choice between new and used more difficult. At some point, not only is the developer (Hopefully) getting more new sales, but we, the consumer, are better off, since the competition has lowered the prices. There are probably other, equally interesting solutions.

But if you want to bring up Legality and "Ethics", you might want to consider that the passes are also Legal, and "Ethical", and those "Poor Devs" have the right to charge how they want for the game, it's entirely your decision whether you choose to buy it.

Punishing not only people who buy use but people who have crappy internet connections. Then again, I think I'm in the extreme minority when it comes to having both problems. Still, the stick won't always win EA customers and I hope they see that sooner rather than later.

Not sure what you mean there: Always on DRM like that in Assassins Creed 2, and Brotherhood, Driver: San Fransisco and Silent Hunter (4 I think) punishes people with a poor internet connection. That's always on DRM. Good versions like Steam have offline modes, where the authentication is once only, or can be saved in case the connection goes offline. Bad ones like the Ubisoft one kick players with bad net out of Single Player games (Diablo 3 will use a similar system).
Online Pass is where some content "Day 1 DLC" or even a large part of the game, in this case, multiplayer, is available to only the player who buys new, through a code included in new copies. This one time key must then be bought (For around $10) by gamers who bought a second hand copy. In this case, people with crappy net aren't affected at all, as the part they're restricting is multiplayer, which is conditional on good net anyway, especially as there does not appear to be LAN support for this game. Of course, if you can't connect long enough to purchase a pass, then I think you'll have some problem with playing the multiplayer, which I found was rather keen to kick you if you were idle but for a moment.
The scheme artificially degrades the game to make second hand copies less desirable, and make the new ones more so.

Nor do CDs or DVDs degrade in that manner, and yet it is legal to buy them second hand. As I said, there are different ways they can "Fight" used sales, rather than locking out online play. For instance, they could run advertisements in loading screens for used players in online play. That way, they're still making money, and used players can still play

 

[Warmoose]

It's the old story of taking away instead of giving something extra. They'll eventually figure it out.

Wait, what? Aren't they in essence doing that, by giving players who buy new Multiplayer, and players who buy used are not rewarded in that way.

Don't get me wrong, I think Online passes are an unnecessary hassle, but I can see where the gaming industry is coming from when it wants to regulate used sales. And to each person saying there's a better way: Tell me what it is. I've been thinking quite a bit about this issue, and I have not yet thought of a solution which is better than the online pass, unless you count reducing the price of new games to compete. Personally, I prefer online pass to crazy install limits like BioShock or the Sims, which is another fix for the issue.

Pretty much every item is sold used, and the people who created it see no money from it. None. This is no different legally or ethically. So please, let's not create a guilt trip about the "poor devs".

I really don't get this statement. In the case of selling other things second hand, there is degradation: A used car is not worth the same as a new car, AND it is functionally differet (More mileage etc). With a game, like a CD, there is no difference between the used and the new. So when you go to EB or Gamestop and get a game, they recommend the used copy, which is identical, there's no difference between new and used but the price. And out of that, the developer gets no money. Which isn't the most sensical system. It rewards only the Gamestop or EB, and in that case, how much do they give you on your trade-ins? A lot less than the new copy is worth, and less than they sell it for, and they still get to undercut the new games, making an easy profit.

I don't think used games are immoral, but it does make sense for a developer or publisher to be concerned about the prevalence of them, since it directly impacts their bottom line. A player playing the game used is a player who has not paid the developer, and to them, that is an issue.

I'm sure there is a better alternative to the online pass. I'm personally in favour of dropping the prices of new games: squeeze the bottom line of the used game economy and make the choice between new and used more difficult. At some point, not only is the developer (Hopefully) getting more new sales, but we, the consumer, are better off, since the competition has lowered the prices. There are probably other, equally interesting solutions.

But if you want to bring up Legality and "Ethics", you might want to consider that the passes are also Legal, and "Ethical", and those "Poor Devs" have the right to charge how they want for the game, it's entirely your decision whether you choose to buy it.

Punishing not only people who buy use but people who have crappy internet connections. Then again, I think I'm in the extreme minority when it comes to having both problems. Still, the stick won't always win EA customers and I hope they see that sooner rather than later.

Not sure what you mean there: Always on DRM like that in Assassins Creed 2, and Brotherhood, Driver: San Fransisco and Silent Hunter (4 I think) punishes people with a poor internet connection. That's always on DRM. Good versions like Steam have offline modes, where the authentication is once only, or can be saved in case the connection goes offline. Bad ones like the Ubisoft one kick players with bad net out of Single Player games (Diablo 3 will use a similar system).
Online Pass is where some content "Day 1 DLC" or even a large part of the game, in this case, multiplayer, is available to only the player who buys new, through a code included in new copies. This one time key must then be bought (For around $10) by gamers who bought a second hand copy. In this case, people with crappy net aren't affected at all, as the part they're restricting is multiplayer, which is conditional on good net anyway, especially as there does not appear to be LAN support for this game. Of course, if you can't connect long enough to purchase a pass, then I think you'll have some problem with playing the multiplayer, which I found was rather keen to kick you if you were idle but for a moment.
The scheme artificially degrades the game to make second hand copies less desirable, and make the new ones more so.

Well, I have to disagree on multiple points.

First, the gaming medium/industry is the only one that punishes it's audience for buying games used. You don't see this in books, films, television, etc. There is no reason for this. For the games that there are online passes, the devs get enough money already from the new game sales, DLC, or prestige editions. I understand that servers cost money but, if they are making me pay for something I already payed for in a different form (xbox live) then it simply doesn't make sense.

Next, as other users have noted games do degrade over time, when you buy a used game, it is extremely likely for it to be scratched, and can sometimes be missing it's manual and even box. Therefore if you buy a game used the chance you are taking is equal to the money you gain by buying it used.

Finally, (not towards your post) I have expierenced multiple issues with connecting to EA Online in a few of it's different games. (they were new games, and it only happened with EA games) If the money from these online passes are going towards servers, then why haven't I seen an improvement in EA's servers?

 

[Kingme18]

I'm actually getting really annoyed at the people that complain about online passes. They're inevitable, and if you don't like them, then there are better things to do about it than complain about it on a forum. Email the company, tell them about it in a polite manner, and maybe they'll agree with you.

This is a Gaming Forum. Things like this will be discussed. Accept it and move on.

Did you not read my entire discussion with the other guy? God, you're ignorant.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I'm actually getting really annoyed at the people that complain about online passes. They're inevitable, and if you don't like them, then there are better things to do about it than complain about it on a forum. Email the company, tell them about it in a polite manner, and maybe they'll agree with you.

This is a Gaming Forum. Things like this will be discussed. Accept it and move on.

Did you not read my entire discussion with the other guy? God, you're ignorant.

Spoiler

There you go again. There you go again.

Look, you need to not be so quick in insulting people.

 

[thedeathscythe]

It's the old story of taking away instead of giving something extra. They'll eventually figure it out.

This entirely. I also think that going completely digital gets rid of used sales while creating infinitely more possibilities and also pushing the medium forward in full strength. That is, assuming it isn't sold under one digital distribution system, especially one in which a lot of people have voiced their problems with it. That being said, there is other ways to convince customers to buy new instead of used.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

WAHT A TWIST!!!1!
Nothing suprising, you even said that yourself...
Dosn't matter, EA won't be getting money out of me for BF3 anyway.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

You know what, I just don't think I'm gonna buy the game. Even though the online pass doesn't bother me to extensively, I just think that there has been one to many bullshit tactics pulled by EA and Dice on this one.

Why are you trying to make it so hard for people to play your game?