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

[MammothBlade]

Do they make you pay extra if you bought the game first-hand?

I'm ok with charging second-hand users, can't expect publishers to pay server costs for people who haven't even paid them. It's just charging for single-player that's the problem.

 

[Something Amyss]

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?

Online passes were doing it before microtransactions were cool.

But really, is this so much different than any game with an online component these days? At least, on consoles? Except the paying extra later on. But even then, not so out of touch.

I'm not sure if this is just a "hate on EA" thing, but you do know that EA is not the pioneer of the online pass, right? Hell, I don't think they're the first company to do the Online Pass for co-op.

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.

The answer is certainly not continuing to give them money, enforcing the practice.

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?

Because people hate EA? Of course, there is the fact that this is a semantics deal, but you know how the gaming community is about semantics.

Do they make you pay extra if you bought the game first-hand?

New games come with a one-time code for redemption of the Online Pass. You don't pay extra. However, I'd also note that these codes have an expiration date, and getting a valid one AFTER said date can be quite the hassle.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Considering Dead Space 2 had a online pass 2 years ago, why are people complaining now?

Most didn't care for the multiplayer in that from what I understand, I know I didn't. And this is to play the campaign with a friend, it's abit different from barring people from multi matches they might not care about as much considering how tacked on it was.

Do they make you pay extra if you bought the game first-hand?

I'm ok with charging second-hand users, can't expect publishers to pay server costs for people who haven't even paid them. It's just charging for single-player that's the problem.

But if that copy goes to someone else, they aren't covering the cost for both players to play. It's still just one player using it, that's what gets me. I kinda get why people do it, but they already have their micro transactions in this game and EA can't exactly pull the "We're too poor to pay for the servers." card either.

Do they make you pay extra if you bought the game first-hand?

New games come with a one-time code for redemption of the Online Pass. You don't pay extra. However, I'd also note that these codes have an expiration date, and getting a valid one AFTER said date can be quite the hassle.

I've been stung by that before, for Mass Effect 2 and Battlefield Bad Company 2. It's a real pain in the ass, since they don't state the expiry on the boxes, just on the card inside that you can only look at once bought.

 

[Sargonas42]

As someone who was actually involved in the online aspect of DS3 for a few months at the beginning, let me weigh in a bit here. (Full disclosure, I was at one time an online producer for EA, though I left last May. The last title I was involved with was DS3. I do not speak officially for the company or for DS3, but I'd like to weigh in where I can based on my own observations and experiences that are not under NDA).

The co-op has an online component that has a fairly significant cost. While the game takes place between your two consoles, an online matchmaking system still exists to handle linking together and synchronizing your games. It also handles the "lobbies" that you can access to hop around public games and quick matches. In essence, there is a giant framework that does a lot of traffic routing. Now you may not realize it, but there are a LOT of servers that need to go into effect to make this magic happen, all over the world for different regions, and there is a lot more bandwidth involved than you might imagine. All of this work, and the development of and maintenance of these systems costs a fair amount of money. Now in the days before used sales were at a greater ratio than new on some titles, this was a non issue as new game sales recouped enough money that a percentage could be earmarked for this cost. This current generation however those online costs have gone up and the money coming in per user has gone down, because if over a month long period there are 10 users who paid for the game new and 20 who paid for it used, well that means 30 people are taxing the system's resources and yet there is only revenue for 10 people. You can see where the math doesn't add up.

Yes, I know you are going to say "but wait! those used games were still bought new! So the money still came in!". Well, yes and no. It did, but games have an average life span. There is only so much time before gamers move on to the next thing, and this is factored in via amortization. No one is going to buy DS3 new, then play it co-op for 3 years! If a single disc has 4 owners over 2 years, that means the money from the new one covered the cost of the first user's 6 month experience, but by that time it's now run through it's expected amortization and subsequent users are burning money that has not been accounted for.

Obviously it's not THAT cut and dry, but it's an accurate enough of a watered down metaphor. I'm sure you've all heard this argument before, but as someone who's been in the trenches I just thought I would bring it up again to show it's not a throwaway excuse but is a real thing. There are, of course, other things that weigh into this as well... such as increasing expectations (and rightfully so!) from gamers for more and more complex and richer online experiences, while still maintaining the same quality of game at the same price point. That too has an inherent cost to it that needs to be met somehow. Trying to piggyback that on second hand buyers paying a discount is not an unreasonable thing to do in lieu of increasing the games from the current $60 price point.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I will never buy an online pass for anything. The very idea of having to pay a supplement to access different parts of a game is so abhorrent I loathe EA for this practise alone.

No other industry or entertainment medium would dare to withhold part of the content while demanding more money. I've never had to pay twice for a book or film, single or album.

Not to mention that now that everything has multiplayer there are so few players for any given game, no communities and a with 1 year turnaround times every shooter has a stupidly short shelf life. Shooters used to be around for years, till CoD and annual number-incrementing trained morons to pay year on year for the same shit. TF2 has been around for years because it's an incredible shooter and it's F2P. CoD costs a fortune, sucks and has a limited shelf life. F**k that.

The days of simply making good games however are gone. Now games are cut up into pieces to be sold separately, include in-game microtransactions (DS3), as much nickel and dimeing as possible, then cast aside like a used condom for the same game with an incremented number on it. Are there any single-player games now that one can simply buy, in a box, install without Internet access, and enjoy the full experience?

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

When you look at how many millions of copies they have to sell of this game, I'd say that pretty much requires some of the most despicable practises EA can bring to bear, if that's what they think will sell copies. But I despise online passes, and I'm getting sick and tired of the notion that the games industry is special, it needs to charge twice or more for its products, unlike any other kind of media, and unlike any other kind of product I can think of immediately. Maybe there are costs associated with online infranstructure and maintainence and whatnot. Suck it up, princess. You shouldn't get to charge 3 and 4 times for one game that one person is still playing. You can jusify all you want from a business perspective, and hey, that's the publisher's prerogative, but it's disingenuous all the same. Last but definitely not least, I'd like to see some research done on how much money used games by themselves feed back into the system. Because I know a lot of people who just wouldn't buy half the games they do currently if they couldn't get some return on old ones. But I don't know, so someone needs to before companies like EA finally squash the used game market and, perhaps, wonder where all the fucking sales are going.

 

[Dead Seerius]

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?

Online passes were doing it before microtransactions were cool.

But really, is this so much different than any game with an online component these days? At least, on consoles? Except the paying extra later on. But even then, not so out of touch.

I'm not sure if this is just a "hate on EA" thing, but you do know that EA is not the pioneer of the online pass, right? Hell, I don't think they're the first company to do the Online Pass for co-op.

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.

The answer is certainly not continuing to give them money, enforcing the practice.

As I said in some later comments on this thread, I don't believe you can justify an online pass with story-mode based content because it's a limited experience and I don't believe any mode associated with a game's primary draw (in DS3's case, story mode) should require extra payment to experience. Obviously, this is just my opinion and you're welcome to disagree.

But I don't quite remember where I said that this online pass stuff is all EA's doing. I'm aware they aren't the 'pioneers' or this stuff. This thread is about co-op online passes in DS3, a game published by EA, therefore I used EA as my example.

And lastly, I don't see how paying for a base game that uses micro-transactions inherently tells the publisher that micro-transactions are good. So long as I don't buy into the micro-transactions (which I wouldn't, based on principle and generally not giving a fuck) then how am I enforcing them? If anything, if DS3 sold a ton of copies but no one used MTs, it would probably be the best way for EA to see how pointless and reviled they are.
Sorry to say, but boycotting a game won't likely even register as a blip on a publisher's radar, regardless of how much potential money they'd miss out on; instead, if game sales seriously under-preformed they'd just assume people didn't like the game, which can cause problems for everyone - a sad occurrence if the game itself is quite good and deserving of purchase.

 

[Ari Goldman]

As someone who was actually involved in the online aspect of DS3 for a few months at the beginning, let me weigh in a bit here. (Full disclosure, I was at one time an online producer for EA, though I left last May. The last title I was involved with was DS3. I do not speak officially for the company or for DS3, but I'd like to weigh in where I can based on my own observations and experiences that are not under NDA).

The co-op has an online component that has a fairly significant cost. While the game takes place between your two consoles, an online matchmaking system still exists to handle linking together and synchronizing your games. It also handles the "lobbies" that you can access to hop around public games and quick matches. In essence, there is a giant framework that does a lot of traffic routing. Now you may not realize it, but there are a LOT of servers that need to go into effect to make this magic happen, all over the world for different regions, and there is a lot more bandwidth involved than you might imagine. All of this work, and the development of and maintenance of these systems costs a fair amount of money. Now in the days before used sales were at a greater ratio than new on some titles, this was a non issue as new game sales recouped enough money that a percentage could be earmarked for this cost. This current generation however those online costs have gone up and the money coming in per user has gone down, because if over a month long period there are 10 users who paid for the game new and 20 who paid for it used, well that means 30 people are taxing the system's resources and yet there is only revenue for 10 people. You can see where the math doesn't add up.

Yes, I know you are going to say "but wait! those used games were still bought new! So the money still came in!". Well, yes and no. It did, but games have an average life span. There is only so much time before gamers move on to the next thing, and this is factored in via amortization. No one is going to buy DS3 new, then play it co-op for 3 years! If a single disc has 4 owners over 2 years, that means the money from the new one covered the cost of the first user's 6 month experience, but by that time it's now run through it's expected amortization and subsequent users are burning money that has not been accounted for.

Obviously it's not THAT cut and dry, but it's an accurate enough of a watered down metaphor. I'm sure you've all heard this argument before, but as someone who's been in the trenches I just thought I would bring it up again to show it's not a throwaway excuse but is a real thing. There are, of course, other things that weigh into this as well... such as increasing expectations (and rightfully so!) from gamers for more and more complex and richer online experiences, while still maintaining the same quality of game at the same price point. That too has an inherent cost to it that needs to be met somehow. Trying to piggyback that on second hand buyers paying a discount is not an unreasonable thing to do in lieu of increasing the games from the current $60 price point.

It is a throwaway excuse, plenty of companies can be incredibly profitable without online passes.

And if thats a legitimate argument then where is the LAN play thats not hidden behind an online pass? And if im not mistaken matchmaking servers are run by microsoft on xbox live, not by EA.

EA loves shoving people into online services they dont want or need in attempts to squeeze every last dime from the consumer... dead space 2, ME3 were single player games with multiplayer content shoehorned in for the sole purpose of being able to include an online pass. Dead Space and Mass Effect fans were not pining for multiplayer and the benevolent EA included it to please their fanbase, it was a blatant cash grab. Same as EA is now trying to say they need microtransactions in console games in order to please people that game on mobile devices and are used to microtransactions. The corporate BS is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

If companies like EA really didnt like the 2nd hand market, then they should be going to battle with gamestop, stop giving them exclusive preorder bonuses... stop herding customers into their stores. Hell EA even cut a deal with gamestop to put the online passes into used copies of Arkham City. The number 1 goal of EA is and always has been to milk to consumer, to offer less content and charge more money for it.

Im proud to say i stopped buying EA games once they started doing the online pass garbage. Although i did break down and buy ME3 to finish the trilogy, but i waited and bought it for $15. I actually came here to google if DS3 had an online pass so i would know if i should buy it or not.. i assumed it would but was hoping maybe EA would eventually start trying to please its customers rather than piss them off. But creating rewarding long lasting gaming experiences customers want to buy day 1 and keep in their video game collection forever... would require effort. Its much easier to just throw online passes and microtransactions into every game if you are lazy and have no respect for your customers.

 

[The White Hunter]

Honestly I don't care. I buy games new anyway so the fact the have online passes for used copies isn't a big deal to me. I can see why it would be upsetting to have to go spend another $10 after you bought it for $50 used in Gamestop or something but really, if you're gonna buy used buy dirt cheap or just get a new copy a year from now on Amazon at half the price.

I have a bigger gripe: the co-op is not split-screen and thus I will NEVER USE IT.

Edit: At least you get some stuff with the online pass, which is an incentive to buy new rather than just a punishment. Bad Company 2 is an example of a well done online pass, the pass got you frequent map packs for no extra cost if you bough the game new, so you got something decent out of it and could actually still play the game anyway, just with less content.

 

[The White Hunter]

I'm not sure if this is just a "hate on EA" thing, but you do know that EA is not the pioneer of the online pass, right? Hell, I don't think they're the first company to do the Online Pass for co-op.

They are almost definately not.

Also, don't you need XBox Live to play Halo 4's co-op mode OFFLINE? Because that seems like the pinnacle of dick moves to co-op gamers to date, not Dead Space 3's passes and shit.

 

[Sargonas42]

It is a throwaway excuse, plenty of companies can be incredibly profitable without online passes.

And if thats a legitimate argument then where is the LAN play thats not hidden behind an online pass? And if im not mistaken matchmaking servers are run by microsoft on xbox live, not by EA.

Not quite true. Companies can CHOOSE to have MS run matchmaking, at a cost that MS bills back to them, but it's an option that some companies take, while other larger ones like EA choose to run their own systems so that they can have a much more complex and richer interaction with more features and functionality than would be available if they tap into the MS provided method. It also allows for doing things like the unified login using your Origin ID, which allows for fun interactions like auto detecting you own Mass Effect and giving you an N7 suit when you first start the game, or a special Planet Cracker edition Plasma Cutter for playing DS2.

EA loves shoving people into online services they dont want or need in attempts to squeeze every last dime from the consumer... dead space 2, ME3 were single player games with multiplayer content shoehorned in for the sole purpose of being able to include an online pass. Dead Space and Mass Effect fans were not pining for multiplayer and the benevolent EA included it to please their fanbase, it was a blatant cash grab. Same as EA is now trying to say they need microtransactions in console games in order to please people that game on mobile devices and are used to microtransactions. The corporate BS is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

How are you being "shoved" into it with DS2 and 3? You don't have to play the MP in 2, I know many people who did not. With 3, you can elect to not play co-op and you will not be punished for it. Oh sure, there are some Carver specific missions you will miss out on, but that does not hamstring you. It's just story and background that was created for the express purpose of making the experience of playing Carver more enjoyable, to help amongst many other reasons to avoid the "younger sibling syndrome" of playing player 2 and potentially having a boring experience. At no point are you being shoved into an experience you do not want however. In both cases you can disregard them completely and not miss out on the core single player experience as it was created. As to that last statement made by the producer in question that Penny Arcade quoted... well... I'll be honest and what he said is definitely eyebrow raising. And there is nothing I can say on the matter to support it.

If companies like EA really didnt like the 2nd hand market, then they should be going to battle with gamestop, stop giving them exclusive preorder bonuses... stop herding customers into their stores. Hell EA even cut a deal with gamestop to put the online passes into used copies of Arkham City. The number 1 goal of EA is and always has been to milk to consumer, to offer less content and charge more money for it.

Im proud to say i stopped buying EA games once they started doing the online pass garbage. Although i did break down and buy ME3 to finish the trilogy, but i waited and bought it for $15. I actually came here to google if DS3 had an online pass so i would know if i should buy it or not.. i assumed it would but was hoping maybe EA would eventually start trying to please its customers rather than piss them off. But creating rewarding long lasting gaming experiences customers want to buy day 1 and keep in their video game collection forever... would require effort. Its much easier to just throw online passes and microtransactions into every game if you are lazy and have no respect for your customers.

I'm confused on the EA/Arkham City part. Did I miss something there? I thought the online passes in used Arkham City copies was an entirely Gamestop thing, I don't get where EA comes into play, especially since they did not publish it on console only on PC via Origin as a third party. I am unsure how they have anything to do with this. As to your point on "going to battle with Gamestop" those sorts of things are not cut and dry. No major publisher wants to risk a direct, frontal assault on Gamestop's market. Doing so would be fiscal suicide given the volume that Gamestop moves of brick and mortar based products. Not to mention publishers don't want to completely KILL Gamestop, they just want to make sure they are not loosing money because of them.

I think your last two lines are a big point that should be brought up. These days, the mindset of the average gamer is NOT someone who's looking for a long lasting, keep/play the game forever kind of person. The market majority plays something to completion, squeezes out what they can, and moves on to the next big thing. It's a different mindset than how the current console generation began and studios are trying to maximize their return out of that. Also, game prices have remained mostly static in 15-20 years. If you counted for economic inflation, the average $60 game would be $130 today instead, based on market trends since the 90s. Instead of passing those cost increases on to gamers studios are just trying to find other ways to seed them out there in less direct ways that only hit against the people who are WILLING to pay. (There is a lot of data to support this, and my personal motto is to always include reference links when citing numbers like this, but sadly I am on my iPhone and don't have the links readily available.)

Those like you do the choice and vote one way or another with your wallet, which is how it should be done. If there is an experience you do not enjoy, don't buy it. The majority will sway the market then one way or another.

 

[nexus]

Why are people so apathetic.

"It was like this before years ago, so why bother complaining now?"

Ugh.

It's something called conviction, and is tied into the trait known as integrity. If it bothered someone before, and it still does years on, that just means they have strong convictions and really nothing wrong with that is there? I don't share the same feelings with Online Passes, but I'm just tired of seeing that on the Escapist, or anywhere.

 

[Ari Goldman]

Not quite true. Companies can CHOOSE to have MS run matchmaking, at a cost that MS bills back to them, but it's an option that some companies take, while other larger ones like EA choose to run their own systems so that they can have a much more complex and richer interaction with more features and functionality than would be available if they tap into the MS provided method. It also allows for doing things like the unified login using your Origin ID, which allows for fun interactions like auto detecting you own Mass Effect and giving you an N7 suit when you first start the game, or a special Planet Cracker edition Plasma Cutter for playing DS2.

Or they could save us the headache of making us sign up for origin accounts that get hacked and just check for a game save file... which they do in order to import decisions from the previous game. But data mining and customer information is valuable... thus they put more hurdles between the consumer and their enjoyment of the game they purchased.

How are you being "shoved" into it with DS2 and 3? You don't have to play the MP in 2, I know many people who did not. With 3, you can elect to not play co-op and you will not be punished for it. Oh sure, there are some Carver specific missions you will miss out on, but that does not hamstring you. It's just story and background that was created for the express purpose of making the experience of playing Carver more enjoyable, to help amongst many other reasons to avoid the "younger sibling syndrome" of playing player 2 and potentially having a boring experience. At no point are you being shoved into an experience you do not want however. In both cases you can disregard them completely and not miss out on the core single player experience as it was created. As to that last statement made by the producer in question that Penny Arcade quoted... well... I'll be honest and what he said is definitely eyebrow raising. And there is nothing I can say on the matter to support it.

My point was that the online pass doesnt exist to cover costs of the online functionality, but rather the online functionality is created as an excuse to incorporate an online pass. And you have games like kingdoms of amalur with online passes and no online content.

I'm confused on the EA/Arkham City part. Did I miss something there? I thought the online passes in used Arkham City copies was an entirely Gamestop thing, I don't get where EA comes into play, especially since they did not publish it on console only on PC via Origin as a third party. I am unsure how they have anything to do with this. As to your point on "going to battle with Gamestop" those sorts of things are not cut and dry. No major publisher wants to risk a direct, frontal assault on Gamestop's market. Doing so would be fiscal suicide given the volume that Gamestop moves of brick and mortar based products. Not to mention publishers don't want to completely KILL Gamestop, they just want to make sure they are not loosing money because of them.

How is gamestop going to generate the codes for that? Unless they are hacking into servers i dont think they just sat down and guessed valid codes. Any codes they have, have to come from the publisher. But i thought AC was published by EA... guess i was wrong with that. But the point was that publishers dont seem too upset over the 2nd hand market if they are going to lengths to support it.

And im aware no publisher wants to burn their bridges with gamestop, so they try to find others ways to squeeze money from the consumer rather than go after the people actually creating the 2nd hand market that they claim is forcing them to include online passes. It basically comes down too, "well its easier to screw over the consumer, than to screw over gamestop... so lets screw over the consumer for gamestop's business practices."

I think your last two lines are a big point that should be brought up. These days, the mindset of the average gamer is NOT someone who's looking for a long lasting, keep/play the game forever kind of person. The market majority plays something to completion, squeezes out what they can, and moves on to the next big thing. It's a different mindset than how the current console generation began and studios are trying to maximize their return out of that. Also, game prices have remained mostly static in 15-20 years. If you counted for economic inflation, the average $60 game would be $130 today instead, based on market trends since the 90s. Instead of passing those cost increases on to gamers studios are just trying to find other ways to seed them out there in less direct ways that only hit against the people who are WILLING to pay. (There is a lot of data to support this, and my personal motto is to always include reference links when citing numbers like this, but sadly I am on my iPhone and don't have the links readily available.)

Those like you do the choice and vote one way or another with your wallet, which is how it should be done. If there is an experience you do not enjoy, don't buy it. The majority will sway the market then one way or another.

Game prices are lower but the market as a whole is growing... gaming isnt a niche market for kids at christmas anymore. Now in my late 20s rather than having 5 or 6 NES games on my shelf i have probably over 100 current gen games. The volume of sales has greatly increased and i refuse to believe publishers are struggling to make ends meet, especially when online passes are going into already profitable and established franchises. And the truth of the matter is, people trade in old games to get more new games... that money stays in the industry and goes right back to publishers. The money that is being taken away from publishers is gamestop's cut... the retailers are the ones taking money from the publishers, not the consumers.

The problem with the old "vote with your wallet" motto is, publishers like EA wont blame their business practices for the revenue loss.. they will blame consumer trends as you are doing and pack in more hidden costs. When a sizable chunk of their customers makes the conscious choice to not give EA more money... EA will use it as a scapegoat to just put microtransactions in every game and withhold even more content behind a pay wall. Plenty of publishers are raking in money without needing to blame consumers and bleed them dry while pretending to be victims of the times.

 

[Something Amyss]

As I said in some later comments on this thread, I don't believe you can justify an online pass with story-mode based content because it's a limited experience and I don't believe any mode associated with a game's primary draw (in DS3's case, story mode) should require extra payment to experience. Obviously, this is just my opinion and you're welcome to disagree.

You're free to believe that, but we're still talking an online element that doesnt' seem to actually impact the story mode in any meaningful experiential way.

But I don't quite remember where I said that this online pass stuff is all EA's doing.

Fortunately, you didn't have to for it to be relevant. In fact, you could have simply said "yes, I'm aware, and I don't condone it elsewhere."

And lastly, I don't see how paying for a base game that uses micro-transactions inherently tells the publisher that micro-transactions are good. So long as I don't buy into the micro-transactions (which I wouldn't, based on principle and generally not giving a fuck) then how am I enforcing them? If anything, if DS3 sold a ton of copies but no one used MTs, it would probably be the best way for EA to see how pointless and reviled they are.

Except they have no real way to separate the metrics here. In fact, EA uses base game sales to justify Oonline Passes and other policies in their discal analyses. So...Yeah.

Sorry to say, but boycotting a game won't likely even register as a blip on a publisher's radar, regardless of how much potential money they'd miss out on;

I love how you propose the hypothetical where nobody buys MT content, then go and talk self-fulfilling defeatism here. It's beautiful.

instead, if game sales seriously under-preformed they'd just assume people didn't like the game, which can cause problems for everyone - a sad occurrence if the game itself is quite good and deserving of purchase.

You know what's also a sad occurrence? Them deciding their model works. Guess what's already happened. Hell, I think it's pretty screwed up that we're (not you and I, before you get all hostile and tell me it's the nature of the thread, but rather the community as a whole) are having this discussion now, only AFTER these practices have gained corporate acceptance by tacit consumer approval. It's like discussing whether or not you should close the barn door after the cows have escaped, been poached, and sold on the market.

Hell, when it was brought up about Saints Row the Third--a game from a series where co-op is more integrated overall, a staple since the prior title--the overall response was more or less "*****, please." When people brought up the Microtransactions, the response was similar. Dead Space 2? Already had this stuff, and nobody seemed to care. It was so small a deal a lot of people still don't know about it.

In context, it seems bloody stupid.

You're right about one thing, though. Bad sales mean nothing in a vacuum. the problem is, good sales mean everything in that same vacuum, because all a corporation has to do to justify itself is look at sales numbers. The difference is, complaints can be ignored with good sales (EA even used them as a badge of honour for ME3), but they really can't when sales are bad. If you want to buy the games, go for it, but you are propping up such policies because nobody cares when a company is doing well.

 

[ThriKreen]

EA loves shoving people into online services they dont want or need in attempts to squeeze every last dime from the consumer... dead space 2, ME3 were single player games with multiplayer content shoehorned in for the sole purpose of being able to include an online pass.

Sorry, but multiplayer was always in the plans for Mass Effect since ME1 - after all it's made using the Unreal engine, known for popular multiplayer games like Unreal Tournament.

Think about it, if the ME1 MP was poorly done it, it might have ruined support for it in the later chapters - and when you think about how rough some of the systems were in ME1... and an untried, first time IP still trying to figure out what it is, well...

Thus it took til ME3 for it to be made was to avoid the shoe-horned in problem, so it feels integrated as part of the game world and somewhat makes sense. You might complain about it, but a lot of people who have played it like it's coop survival design and increasing difficulty. Sure the randomness of the packs can be irritating, but one doesn't have to spend money on them, just grind some more, which they're doing anyway. And they've been releasing multiplayer packs for free on a regular basis, with weekend challenges and all that.

And playing ME3 MP isn't required at all, since you can easily max out the military strength bar from SP. MP just acts as a multiplier.

 

[Vausch]

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...

Too bad you can't pirate the game then send a cheque directly to the developers. That'd be something. Sure, illegal and unlikely to work, but something.

 

[Milkman]

A lot of people are torn right now, which is why I'm afraid these practices are going to negatively affect sales. They should have simply left out the need for a pass to access co-op. Instead of taking away large chunks of the game, give us an incentive. Don't punish us for being frugal, that's how you lose sales in the long run, EA. If they just gave us the two free suits and didn't lock us out of co-op, people wouldn't be boycotting.

 

[Dead Seerius]

You're free to believe that, but we're still talking an online element that doesnt' seem to actually impact the story mode in any meaningful experiential way.

That's part of my point. It isn't really its own original mode and provides a very limited amount of fresh entertainment - it shouldn't require an online pass.

Fortunately, you didn't have to for it to be relevant. In fact, you could have simply said "yes, I'm aware, and I don't condone it elsewhere."

Not sure what you're saying here. You made it seem like I was mindlessly bashing EA just for being EA. I stated otherwise.

Except they have no real way to separate the metrics here. In fact, EA uses base game sales to justify Oonline Passes and other policies in their discal analyses. So...Yeah.

Online passes, perhaps, but I was talking about MTs. And I'm not so sure that's how EA gauges something that isn't provided with the base game. If they do, they are in denial as base game sales have no direct correlation with how the public receives MTs.

I love how you propose the hypothetical where nobody buys MT content, then go and talk self-fulfilling defeatism here. It's beautiful.

I didn't 'propose' anything in the sense that I think gamers should unite in some movement against the 'tyranny of publishers' by not purchasing MTs. I simply think such hard data would be a bit more attention-grabbing to EA than a boycott, and I stand by my belief that almost all video game 'boycotts' do jack squat to change the ways publishers operate. I could go in-depth about the positives of purchasing a game outweighing the negatives in this regard, but Jim Sterling did a pretty good video on the topic a while back if you want to know where I'm coming from.
And was the condescension really necessary?

You know what's also a sad occurrence? Them deciding their model works. Guess what's already happened. Hell, I think it's pretty screwed up that we're (not you and I, before you get all hostile and tell me it's the nature of the thread, but rather the community as a whole) are having this discussion now, only AFTER these practices have gained corporate acceptance by tacit consumer approval. It's like discussing whether or not you should close the barn door after the cows have escaped, been poached, and sold on the market.

I agree. It almost seems like it's too late to change publishers' minds in this regard, and it sucks that it only seems to be getting worse. Parts of the community still attempt to make their dissatisfaction known to publishers (boycotting); unfortunately, there haven't been many successful results. Hopefully someday soon the community will find a way to get through. And to be fair, I'm not one to get hostile.

You're right about one thing, though. Bad sales mean nothing in a vacuum. the problem is, good sales mean everything in that same vacuum, because all a corporation has to do to justify itself is look at sales numbers. The difference is, complaints can be ignored with good sales (EA even used them as a badge of honour for ME3), but they really can't when sales are bad. If you want to buy the games, go for it, but you are propping up such policies because nobody cares when a company is doing well.

Am I propping up such policies by simply paying for a base game, sans extra bullshit? Perhaps indirectly, for the reason you mentioned, but there really is no right answer to this.
Companies never like to believe that it is their own money-making strategies that are harming them financially when sales are down. If a game doesn't sell, a publisher's first reaction won't be 'wow, guess they don't like online passes. We'll be taking those out'. As sad as it is, the first thing they'll do is point fingers at the game itself.
'It didn't sell because people didn't think it was fun. Cancel all related future projects.'

There are ways to bring grievances to the publisher - petitions citing why people won't be purchasing the game. But a lot of these publishers are in denial. They sill chalk it up to being the game's own fault.
But you're right - it seems pointless to even fight now if the cause really is this hopeless. Maybe that's why I buy the games anyway. I can't really picture the publishers listening anyway.

 

[Lunar Templar]

They've never been necessary, and really only exist to punish some one for not buying new, or on the PC (I've not encountered an online pass since going to the PC)