Poll: Online pass for Dead Space 3 co-op? Really?

[chozo_hybrid]

Was looking at getting Dead Space 3 at some point, being a fan of the franchise (I like action/horror games) but saw that it requires a bloody online pass just to play the co-op. Something seems even more wrong then the usual practice of this garbage. Why is it games get away with this, I'm seriously torn between getting it now, as it means I will be supporting this method of screwing customers to the wall. But I like the franchise... Dammit it EA. To a degree it made slight sense for massive multiplayer I guess, even then I had my doubts, but two player co-op, get out of here.

What is your stance on the whole online pass deal, do you think it's needed, do you not? Has it even stopped you from buying a game on principal? Have you ever bought a game that didn't come with one and didn't realize it needed one to play with friends?

 

[Dead Seerius]

In some cases I could MAYBE sympathize with a publisher for using a multiplayer online pass, but this scenario gets a big, fat "whelp THAT'S a load of bullshit" response from me.

I could be wrong here, but isn't the co-op aspect of DS3, like, a really sizable chunk of the content? (Yes, I was mistaken.) So basically a year from now when the only copies of DS3 you'll find are used copies, you're going to have to shell out $50 to Gamestop for half a game? And then pay an additional $____ for the rest? Nice EA. Because the micro transactions just didn't garner enough rage already, right?

In response to your other question, I've never turned down a game because the publisher behind it uses unsavory business practices. As much as I wish I could give them the middle finger, refusing to play a worthy game that some devs worked hard on isn't the way to do it.

 

[Maeshone]

Why does it make more sense for competetive multiplayer than for cooperative multiplayer? They're both only online, so you still need to access the servers to play it. As for my opinion on it, don't care, I make it a point to always try to buy my games new, so I always get my online passes with my purchase. I wouldn't agree with a game like CoD or Halo having it though, since even if they have singleplayer campaigns, most people buy them for the multiplayer, so I guess that is where I'd draw the line.

In some cases I could MAYBE sympathize with a publisher for using a multiplayer online pass, but this scenario gets a big, fat "whelp THAT'S a load of bullshit" response from me.

I could be wrong here, but isn't the co-op aspect of DS3, like, a really sizable chunk of the content? So basically a year from now when the only copies of DS3 you'll find are used copies, you're going to have to shell out $50 to Gamestop for half a game? And then pay an additional $____ for the rest? Nice EA. Because the micro transactions just didn't garner enough rage already, right?

The coop campaign is the exact same campaign as the singleplayer, with some changes to allow for multiplayer puzzlesolving and conversations. So no, there's no cutting of significant content here.

Also, enough with the microtransactions. You could buy more powerful versions of your guns and suits since freaking Dead Space 1, why does that not bother people, but it does if you slap a new name on it?

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Why does it make more sense for competetive multiplayer than for cooperative multiplayer? They're both only online, so you still need to access the servers to play it.

True, while I don't know much about how these things work, I just imagine it costs more to run a ton of multiplayer servers for the likes of games like CoD and Battlefield. That's why I said slightly understand, as there is a small part of sense to it, but it's still mostly BS.

In response to your other question, I've never turned down a game because the publisher behind it uses unsavory business practices. As much as I wish I could give them the middle finger, refusing to play a worthy game that some devs worked hard on isn't the way to do it.

That's what I'm torn between at the moment...

 

[ThriKreen]

Was looking at getting Dead Space 3 at some point, being a fan of the franchise (I like action/horror games) but saw that it requires a bloody online pass just to play the co-op.

Remember that the online pass is only if you bought the game used, if you got it new, you have it already.

What is your stance on the whole online pass deal, do you think it's needed, do you not? Has it even stopped you from buying a game on principal? Have you ever bought a game that didn't come with one and didn't realize it needed one to play with friends?

Given that I tend to buy games new, it doesn't actually affect me much since I'd end up having it anyway.

It's an annoying issue for used buyers, but to some degree it does make sense in a way. Due to the persistent player data, even if you never played the game again, your stats are still stored on the database. And probably linked to your Origin account in some manner. And while storage space is cheap, things like logging and such can add up to much, much more data over time.

Then there's just logistics - they budget the size of the player profile and required storage required based on how many units are sold. Let's say, 1 million. But say all 1 million players sold theirs and a new set of a million players bought it used. Suddenly your database size has doubled, but you can't clear out the old player data since they could possibly return at any point. Obviously it won't be that extreme of selling/buying used, and the storage system is most likely shared among the company's database system with all it's other games, so there's a lot of extra room for expansion. But they're still paying for the support staff and hardware replacements and all that - at least til the servers shut down.

Of course, the alternative is to revert to days of old where we did not have any persistent stat storage, but some people like to go around bragging about their leaderboard placements and such.

I suppose it might be easier to accept if they allowed you to play online but were only seen as "Random Anonymous Player" and no stats were stored, and if you got the pass, you got seen as yourself and your play history.

 

[Maeshone]

Why does it make more sense for competetive multiplayer than for cooperative multiplayer? They're both only online, so you still need to access the servers to play it.

True, while I don't know much about how these things work, I just imagine it costs more to run a ton of multiplayer servers for the likes of games like CoD and Battlefield. That's why I said slightly understand, as there is a small part of sense to it, but it's still mostly BS.

I do see your point as to the bigger titles, but adding an online pass to those would be tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot. Locking the major reason anyone picks those games up behind a paywall is going to result in backlash on a scale unseen since the ME3 ending I think. Besides, I think those titles manage to pay for their own servers just fine, which might be why smaller multiplayer titles use them.

Captcha: hard and fast

... Seriously?

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Why does it make more sense for competetive multiplayer than for cooperative multiplayer? They're both only online, so you still need to access the servers to play it.

True, while I don't know much about how these things work, I just imagine it costs more to run a ton of multiplayer servers for the likes of games like CoD and Battlefield. That's why I said slightly understand, as there is a small part of sense to it, but it's still mostly BS.

I do see your point as to the bigger titles, but adding an online pass to those would be tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot. Locking the major reason anyone picks those games up behind a paywall is going to result in backlash on a scale unseen since the ME3 ending I think. Besides, I think those titles manage to pay for their own servers just fine, which might be why smaller multiplayer titles use them.

Captcha: hard and fast

... Seriously?

I agree completely, one would think with the cost of the title and the DLC you can get, it would pay for itself, but publishers/developers are always saying these damn things a necessary when arguably they aren't.

 

[Maeshone]

Why does it make more sense for competetive multiplayer than for cooperative multiplayer? They're both only online, so you still need to access the servers to play it.

True, while I don't know much about how these things work, I just imagine it costs more to run a ton of multiplayer servers for the likes of games like CoD and Battlefield. That's why I said slightly understand, as there is a small part of sense to it, but it's still mostly BS.

I do see your point as to the bigger titles, but adding an online pass to those would be tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot. Locking the major reason anyone picks those games up behind a paywall is going to result in backlash on a scale unseen since the ME3 ending I think. Besides, I think those titles manage to pay for their own servers just fine, which might be why smaller multiplayer titles use them.

Captcha: hard and fast

... Seriously?

I agree completely, one would think with the cost of the title and the DLC you can get, it would pay for itself, but publishers/developers are always saying these damn things a necessary when arguably they aren't.

Call of Duty and Halo, 2 of the biggest multiplayer titles don't use online passes though, so everything isn't lost yet. I honestly don't remember if Battlefield 3 did, as I haven't played that in ages, let alone pulled out the box from the shelf

 

[Full]

So basically a year from now when the only copies of DS3 you'll find are used copies, you're going to have to shell out $50 to Gamestop for half a game?

This is why I hate online passes. It's crippling in the long run. I don't really know how to word my feeling on this, but I'll try.

Around the release, yeah it's kind of dumb, but I can get over it. However, a year or two, hell longer than that, down the line when this game stops being manufactured at large quantities and people want it, the majority of the reasonably affordable copies of it will be used. You won't be able to access a certain part of it due to the possibility of whatever online systems being changed.

Whether the section of the game be minor, unnecessary, or not, it's pretty much locking away certain sections of art that won't get to be passed on behind an extra pay wall, and that's just wrong to me.

 

[Dead Seerius]

Why does it make more sense for competetive multiplayer than for cooperative multiplayer? They're both only online, so you still need to access the servers to play it. As for my opinion on it, don't care, I make it a point to always try to buy my games new, so I always get my online passes with my purchase. I wouldn't agree with a game like CoD or Halo having it though, since even if they have singleplayer campaigns, most people buy them for the multiplayer, so I guess that is where I'd draw the line.

In some cases I could MAYBE sympathize with a publisher for using a multiplayer online pass, but this scenario gets a big, fat "whelp THAT'S a load of bullshit" response from me.

I could be wrong here, but isn't the co-op aspect of DS3, like, a really sizable chunk of the content? So basically a year from now when the only copies of DS3 you'll find are used copies, you're going to have to shell out $50 to Gamestop for half a game? And then pay an additional $____ for the rest? Nice EA. Because the micro transactions just didn't garner enough rage already, right?

The coop campaign is the exact same campaign as the singleplayer, with some changes to allow for multiplayer puzzlesolving and conversations. So no, there's no cutting of significant content here.

Also, enough with the microtransactions. You could buy more powerful versions of your guns and suits since freaking Dead Space 1, why does that not bother people, but it does if you slap a new name on it?

Multiplayer content, in theory, will never end and if it's designed well will always offer new experiences. If a game contains a quality, decently-lengthed single player mode, asking used game buyers to offer a bit of extra cash to access a well-constructed MP experience that will, again theoretically, never expire, then I don't see too much of a crime being committed. However, a game like Halo or CoD requiring an online pass would be essentially barring entrance to the main mode of the game, and I'd be opposed to that as well.

A co-op mode would most likely be heavily incorporated into a game's story mode, the game's primary feature and a limited one at that. According to you DS3's co-op isn't actually its own supplementary narrative, so I take that back, but the limited aspect of a story mode still makes me feel like an 'online pass' doesn't really belong in a co-op experience such as this.

And DS3's micro transactions don't bother me, by the way. I was just making a point that EA's money-making schemes in DS3 have already been pretty trashed by the gaming community as it is. I think the reason people hate micro transactions more than the gun/costume DLC of the past is because EA has expressed interest in the mobile gaming market's business strategy and people are afraid that this is the beginning of a sad future where micro transactions rule console gaming in the same way they do in the mobile market.
I'm not that worried on that front, but there you go.

 

[Maeshone]

Multiplayer content, in theory, will never end and if it's designed well will always offer new experiences. If a game contains a quality, decently-lengthed single player mode, asking used game buyers to offer a bit of extra cash to access a well-constructed MP experience that will, again theoretically, never expire, then I don't see too much of a crime being committed. However, a game like Halo or CoD requiring an online pass would be essentially barring entrance to the main mode of the game, and I'd be opposed to that as well.

A co-op mode would most likely be heavily incorporated into a game's story mode, the game's primary feature and a limited one at that. According to you DS3's co-op isn't actually its own supplementary narrative, so I take that back, but the limited aspect of a story mode still makes me feel like an 'online pass' doesn't really belong in a co-op experience such as this.

And DS3's micro transactions don't bother me, by the way. I was just making a point that EA's money-making schemes in DS3 have already been pretty trashed by the gaming community as it is. I think the reason people hate micro transactions more than the gun/costume DLC of the past is because EA has expressed interest in the mobile gaming market's business strategy and people are afraid that this is the beginning of a sad future where micro transactions rule console gaming in the same way they do in the mobile market.
I'm not that worried on that front, but there you go.

I can see your point about why you don't think online passes belong in games such as these, and I hadn't actually thought about it that way before, so thanks for bringing that way of seeing it up as I learnt something new there

And as for the microtransactions, it was mostly a reflex after the ridiculous amount of bile that has been spewn at Dead Space and Visceral despite the fact that this is arguably less offensive than their earlier versions, as you can only get items that are actually availible in game through them (at least as far as I know). So, I hope I didn't come off as offensive or aggressive, as that really wasn't my intention.

 

[momijirabbit]

It's EA, what do you expect?

 

[Dead Seerius]

I can see your point about why you don't think online passes belong in games such as these, and I hadn't actually thought about it that way before, so thanks for bringing that way of seeing it up as I learnt something new there

And as for the microtransactions, it was mostly a reflex after the ridiculous amount of bile that has been spewn at Dead Space and Visceral despite the fact that this is arguably less offensive than their earlier versions, as you can only get items that are actually availible in game through them (at least as far as I know). So, I hope I didn't come off as offensive or aggressive, as that really wasn't my intention.

Not at all! You made some good points yourself, and thanks for filling me in on how DS3's co-op system works. I could never tell if it was its own narrative or just extras implemented into the regular single-player campaign.

And I can't really blame you for coming to Visceral's defense on this one. They're a great developer and Dead Space is a quality franchise. It's a shame to see it get needlessly torn apart sometimes.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Call of Duty and Halo, 2 of the biggest multiplayer titles don't use online passes though, so everything isn't lost yet. I honestly don't remember if Battlefield 3 did, as I haven't played that in ages, let alone pulled out the box from the shelf

I don't know if they do, I was citing them as examples of games that would take more server power and you would think would have them, funny to mention they don't. Which begs the question, why do some get away with it.

It's EA, what do you expect?

Dead Space is what has me questioning it, considering it's only for co-op, but the state of this in general was more what I was going for discussion wise.

 

[Rawne1980]

I don't pay for DLC so i'll be damned if I ever pay for an online pass.

I pay for a game once and once only whether that be new, used or cheap on Amazon/sale.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

This is Electronic Arts you're talking about. You expected different? Trollolloll...

 

[squid5580]

Hey lets be fair here. You not only get co op but 2 weapons and 2 suits as well. And current market value of an extra suit is 400 points or $4.99. Seems fair enough to me.

I also don't have a problem with publishers getting a pound of flesh from used game buyers. At least they had some part in the game creation and aren't screwing both the creators and the customers in the process.

 

[lRookiel]

I know game grumps made the game look enticing but god damn I will NEVER EVER go near games made by EA...

Dead space 2 was the last game I bought from them and that online pass shit was what put the padlock on my wallet. The code didn't work so I spoke to "Customer service" about it (If you can call THAT a "service"). They were no help so I asked for a full refund, I still got to play through the single player campaign... It wasn't even that good.

Online passes are not necessary, it delays the pirates by what, a week or two, max? probably a lot less. I'm sure ALOT more people would buy their shit if they didn't treat paying customers like shit thieves.

/vent over

 

[Haefulz]

Developers get exactly $0 for a used game sale, so I'm not necessarily for it, but I'm definitely not extremely against it. if that's what it takes for devs to get a slice of their own pie, then I don't see a huge issue.

I do wonder if/when all games will just require a new, unused product key to play them, basically killing Gamestop's used game business.