Battlefield 3 'probably' shipping with online pass

@(Unverified) Actually I liked Battlefield Bad Company 2's online pass. Once you had it you got all the DLC maps for free and it insured that everyone who played online had access to all the same content. If there is an online pass I hope they don't change it. I have so many friends who never buy DLC, this stops us from fighting over why they don't buy them.

Buy it new and get all future content... except that coop mode that no one plays.

@(Unverified)

I don't get how it costs any more for someone who has a used copy of the game to play online than the person who bought it new. The person who bought it new isn't still playing it so it's 1 for 1. EA just didn't get to double-dip on that purchase.

@superklye
Shush! Don't you go annoying the nice man with your common sense!
Seriously, you people with your... maths... and stuff.

@MarkHawk Like the article says, it seems as though it will include an Online Pass. Not a VIP Pass, which are different. I hope they do the VIP Pass as well, but I know every time there is a mention of "You have to pay to play online" half the site freaks out and thinks the company isn't being fair. Which is stupid, I am fine paying them $10 or buying it new, if I am going to use their services for my online play. Very few people realize how much money they lose from used sales.

@superklye
Exactly.

@(Unverified) Apparently people either

A) Didn't understand that they aren't talking about the VIP Pass, like BC2.
B) are awesome and don't give a crap if they do an Online Pass
C) don't understand my comment in the first place.

Every time there has been a mention of you must pay to play online people flip out, and this time it seems that they aren't which is awesome because I am tired of seeing that.

You mean continue. You know EA is shutting down the servers for Battlefield 2 in 9 days?

EA is the worst company when it comes to shutting off servers, and then they invented a way to charge you for the limited time they do give you, all so they can collect your personal details in their EA.com database whenever you play their games.

I usually don't bother 'boycotting,' but the removal of all instruction manuals with their games was the final straw for me (I toss the cases and use the manuals in a binder), I will be avoiding many more EA titles, and Battlefield 3 seems like a good one to start with.

They've still got my number for Mass Effect 3, though. Bastards.

@jsx

Battlefield 2 is 6 years old and last updated almost 2 years ago...get over it.

@superkyle

EA has to keep the user information from the original poster on their server AND create space for the new user that bought it used. Thus they receive one pay for 2 accounts. It's not like EA knows that someone traded their games in and delete traders account.

I have no problem with this whole online pass thing, as long as they keep it free with new purchases. Wouldn't you be pissed if you created a product and then someone sold said product and you didn't receive a dime for it? Sure it is a money grab, but it is business being business and damn them for trying to turn a profit.

@nielwulf
6 years isn't that old for a PC game at all. Not everyone has ADD, you know.

@(Unverified)

... Until you notice that before they created a monopoly on game servers, people could freely host their own dedicated servers, not having to beg EA and their entitled partners for "Server Space". Y'know, Dedicated Servers. Those servers you purchased from companies who either listened to their customers and upgraded their stuff regularly, or lost customers and failed. Only now EA has completely shut those folks out with all this bullcrap and red tape.

Well, whatever. Enjoy your crappy, laggy, unsupported online play that you paid $10 extra dollars for. Enjoy paying EA to rent your video games, since if you don't actually own them in their eyes (especially since they can cancel your account on 2 years of inactivity!). Enjoy your craploads of Day 1 DLC like Krapland, since Day 1 DLC worked so well for Mass Effect and Dragon Age. Oh wait, DLC is just cut content from the final game that they force you to pay extra for. Oops!

@ShivanSwordsman umadbro? Because over half the stuff you just said isn't an issue, it more seems like you just want to hate on stuff to hate.

@nielwulf "AND create space for the new user that bought it used"

Wait, so this is our problem? EA can delete inactive and unused users if they so choose, I bet. And what are you defending? 500kb of data? They are a billion dollar company that you overpaid just to play a sports game, and they can't store 500KB of data?

I call shenanigans.

@nielwulf

Battlefield 2 old??? Maybe, but Unreal Tournament was released almost 12 years ago, yet you can still find people playing that game.

@superklye Yea it is kind of interesting how they left that out of their logic and either they are really stupid that they cant figure that out or think the consumers are and wont notice that fact.

@superklye

It is not 1:1. There is a curve to online use of copies of a game. In example, say you get B3 and play it for 3 months online before getting bored with it and stop. Your console would no longer be drawing load on the EA sponsored hosting, thus traffic (and hosting costs) decreases over time.

By continually trading/selling used discs around the traffic doesn't decrease, and neither does the cost of hosting. You would think studios want you to play their online game components forever, but they really don't since they don't get any additional revenue from it.

@Aceofwilds

You say that like they're getting any additional revenue from me continuing to play it instead of me selling it after 3 months.

I buy it day 1, they get my money. That's it. There's no additional money they're getting from me unless there's DLC. If I sell it, someone else buys it (they get no money) and that person starts playing instead of me.

1:1

They aren't getting any additional revenue from me or whoever buys my copy, no, but it's no different than if I had kept the game and kept playing.

@superklye I agree and disagree with you. While it's true that Game server-wise that person's space is merely being traded (And even if it wasn't? When's the last time you played BC2 on an official EA hosted server anyway!?), the account for the previous owner still exists and is occupying server space on the EA account server, while the account for the new owner(s) of the game now has to go through the process of being created and occupies space on their servers as well.

So you end up with multiple account taking up space on your database for a single copy of the game which I can definitely see how it's a problem and a costs EA money. If you multiply that by millions that's a lot of extra server space and possibly an extra 2 HDDs (RAID) minimum or even a whole extra server (Worst case scenario)

Now, having said that; $10 is a little steep; I think it should be more along the lines of $1.99 to $4.99 because ultimately that's probably what creating and hosting each account costs EA for the life of the game plus a little extra profit since they are not in the charity business.

So I agree game companies should charge an extra fee for multplayer access to used games, but I think that fee as it currently stands (16.67% of the retail value of the game) is way too steep.

@superklye

Just the opposite - you are right that they don't get additional revenue by you playing it...which is why they want your online play to naturally taper off, not get transferred to a new user who they also get no revenue stream from. Point of sale is typically the only revenue they get, so why would they want you to play online on their servers for 3 years?

It's also less about storage/disk space, and more about network traffic. It costs real money to keep the beefy servers up and often are billed by the amount of data transferred, so they only want to support customers' online play for a limited time (and/or offset hosting costs with DLC if possible).

To support the used game business model where online play is concerned the main options in the playing field at the moment are A) Make it one-customer only, B) Charge a fee.

@superklye

I think they might say it cost them $59.99, actually.

@ShivanSwordsman
I'm not sure what you're talking about with regards to private servers. EA only hosts a limited number of servers for BF2. There are tons of private servers that will remain operational after EA takes theirs down.

Now I'm not sure if the same is going to be true for BF3, but even with BF:BC2 there are plenty of private servers to take advantage of, so I'm hoping that BF will work the same way. At least for PC. I think consoles are strictly limited to the servers provided by EA.

@MarkHawk : plenty of people love coop..when its done well, and even better, playable on a LAN. The game companies are really shooting themselves in the foot by doing away with that kind of experience.

@superklye Actually when someone is buying the game used whoever the company is that made the game gets to see $0 profit on that purchase so the online pass is their defense against the growing used market. I don't necessarily agree with it but I do like playing games and buying games new supports those companies so future products can be made.

@jsx
well, there are other server online. EA's arent the only ones

@superklye


I realize that this is an unpopular opinion but, well... when does it end?

Should we expect to buy just 1 copy and then they should pay for server maintenance for "my spot" for all eternity?

What people don't seem to realize is that online multiplayer is a service they offer to promote selling games, why should they keep paying for a service that no longer brings any income to them? (I do agree that they should let private servers keep operating and if they don't then that's a serious jerk move on their part)

I mean for me it seems kind of like walking to an "all you can eat" restaurant then paying my fee, then selling my "spot" and allowing someone else to eat in my behalf because " hey is 1 on 1!"... I'm sorry but it seems really unreasonable (unless said server maintenance is extremely cheap)... And you can use the exact same logic that has been used here several times "but... how is that any different from me eating ten million cows?".

Obviously they need to either charge something or ask for a subscription, they chose to charge an initial fee so they have to figure out how much time the average player keeps playing online and they put a price according to said information so that at the end of the day they make a profit.

When you allow people to keep selling their "all you can eat spot" you end up with 50 lousy spots sold and a whole lot of people to feed... It just makes no sense.

@superklye

I realize this is an unpopular opinion here but... well when does it end?

Should we expect to just buy 1 copy and then they should pay for server maintenance for "my spot" for all eternity?

What people don't seem to realize is that online multiplayer is a service they offer to promote selling games. Why should they keep paying for a service that no longer brings any income to them? (I do agree that they should let private servers keep running and if they don't that is a serious jerk move on their part)

It seems kind of like walking into an "all you can eat" restaurant then paying my fee, then selling "my spot" to someone else so they can keep eating in my behalf because "hey is 1 on 1!". I'm sorry but it just seems pretty unreasonable (unless said server maintenance is extremely cheap)... And you can use the same logic that has been used here several times "but how is that any different from my eating 10 million cows?".

Obviously they have to either charge an initial fee or offer some kind of subscription, they chose charging an initial fee. So now they have to figure out how much time the average gamer plays online (which is not "eternity") and put a price according to that information so they can make a profit out of the whole transaction.

When you allow people to keep selling their "all you can eat spot" you end up with 50 lousy spots sold and a whole lot of people to feed... It just makes no sense.

@Altair619 *Facepalm*

Also (insert Michael Jackson eating Popcorn Gif)

@Altair619

and when Activision starts doing this what then? You people are funny to me....it cost you NOTHING to play online when you buy it new anyways.....

@Altair619 Enjoy your shitty copy of a 5 year old game.

@Altair619 you think they are going to allow people who buy MW3 second hand to play on Activison server for free , no they have a similar online pass or the call of duty elite thing going on . so unless your get MW3 new you have nothing to worry about ,but get it second hand your screwed.

@Altair619
lol. mention COD and just watch the butthurt. It's pretty hilarious.

@Altair619: Eh I wouldn't say all that.

EA has some pretty sh*tty practices these days, but it would take more than this to make me not want BF3.

Not to mention that if you buy the game you don't have to worry about the online voucher.

@Altair619

Regardless of whether we agree with Altair, his point of view is the one that EA should be paying attention to.

The dominant (in number of sales) online shooters of this generation have been Call of Duty, Halo, and Gears of War. None of these franchises have used an online pass setup.

By making it as easy as possible to get online, these shooters have seen explosive growth in their communities, which translates to more new game sales. Maybe Secondhand Sammy didn't buy Modern Warfare new, but he loved the game and persuaded three of his friends to buy it so they would play online with him.

Sorry, Battlefield, but you are not one of the big boys yet. You really want to be, and with the crumbling of Infinity Ward now is your best chance. Maybe you think the best way to do that is to make it difficult for people who share games with their families and friends, or who buy games used, to get online. You are wrong.

@Altair619

There ARE those of us who want a single player experience longer than 2 minutes, ya know.

This game looks fantastic. Fan of the franchise or not, you have to admit this is a huge game changer.

@Altair619 Lol, troll.

@copa

"Regardless of whether we agree with Altair, his point of view is the one that EA should be paying attention to."

... that's like saying, Hollywood needs to focus not on paying customers, but on the kids who sneak into the movies without paying. You make zero sense.

@kmcroc Yes he does think Activision will let people play the online game without a code. They haven't required one ever before for a Call of Duty game, and they haven't announced an intention to. You are confused about what their pass is for, it's not for online play, it's for access to downloadable content. Every time a call of duty game comes out it's the best selling game of all time. They don't seem to have a problem with used games 'eating into their sales' I guess the moral of the story is make a game that people want to keep after they buy it, and you don't have to worry much about used copies. That's what companies should be doing, making better, more compelling games, not nickle and diming us for content that should already be included.

@kmcroc no they dont elite is optional its something you would do on your pc. there is no online pass for CoD....for now. Who knows bout next year.

@i77ogical

"That's like sayng, Hollywood needs to focus not on paying customers, but on the kids who sneak into the movies without paying. You make zero sense."

Actually he makes a lot of sense.

He didn't say EA shouldn't be paying attention to people who buy the game new / pay for their movie tickets and that they should only focus on people who buy it used / sneak into the movies.

He simply said that they should not go out of their way to crack down on people buying the game used / sneaking into the the theater because then less people play the game / watch the movie and it reduces word of mouth (and, in the video game context but not in your illogical movie analogy, it makes it less convenient to get online - for example, even people who buy the game new have to figure out what the whole pass is about and have to enter in a code to be able to play online).

@Hoops give it sometime & i guaranteeing you that activision will have an online pass come holiday 2011 or Q1 2012.

@kmcroc You guarantee it? So what do I get if you're wrong? Will you email me your credit card information, so I can buy myself something nice on Amazon if it doesn't happen? Otherwise I don't understand what the point of your guarantee is. A better way of saying it is "I think they will have an online pass in the next couple years, but they also may not, I really have no way of knowing' and I would agree with that statement. Call of Duty breaks sales records every time it comes out. Until that stops being the case, I don't see Activision doing something that petty that might anger consumers and hurt sales. Publishers love to cry about the evil used game store that is hurting their sales. Doesn't seem to be hurting Call of Duty's sales. What's the best selling game of all time? Black Ops. What was it before that? MW2. Yeah, the used game market is just killing the industry...

@JasonA

EA doesn't want word of mouth, it wants money for the game it makes. Game devs get enough word of mouth. You're arguing for used game buyers to get free access to servers that cost money maintain. Typical.

And entering a code isn't hard. Any gamer who can keep track of classes, weapons and map flow can enter a 16 digit number.

When used game buyers get less and less for their purchase, they'll buy new, like they should be doing in the first place. If you were a content creator, instead of a dimeless scrounger, you would think the same thing.

@Hoops alright poor choice of words on my behalf, but i stand pat on the fact that Activision will have an online pass also ,just don't know when.

@kmcroc
Kotick said himself that this generation of consoles will have no online passes for any Activision games. He said this about a year or two ago when the first major backlash started w/ EA games. They print money with COD, they don't have to worry about charging everyone that plays their games.

@Chris DPSN AggieCEO XBLThe Aggi

YOu do know there are those of us out there that mainly use GameFly because buying games usually a waste of money. I only buy games I KNOW I will get my monies worth (Borderlands, HALO:Reach, Gears of War, Crysis & Mass Effect). These are all games I have played multiple times (SP NOT just MP) especially Borderlands (LOVE that game). EA can goto Hell. This is why I stopped renting Madden and ANY EA related Sports Game. I rented Dead Space 2, played once, sent back.

@kmcroc

I just don't understand how one player playing the same copy for a year is any more of a strain on their system than 3 players playing the same copy over the course of a year.

It's no different than if three or five accounts are made on the same console (which is allowed). that guy's explanation makes no sense.

@eat it

This post makes the most sense out of any I've seen in a while.

@eat it
EA isn't losing money because of the server, they are losing money because those other 2 players didn't buy new copies. Fewer new copies purchased, means retail stores buy less from EA.