TheBrainninja

@Deathofthedead

Well, how many plush chairs do you think they have around their office? There are only so many places to stage a video like this!

@drunkingamebar

No, I don't think I do. Unless your point is "waaah, my world is changing and I don't like it," in which case yes, I do miss *your* point.

*Their* point is to incentivize new purchases, and they have implemented that without holding back any real content from used purchasers - it's just more of a grind for them, like in any successful Free-to-Play model.

I would say that you have a fundamental lack of understanding of both logic, and the article in which you are commenting.

@ninjapresident

Thanks for the information (I didn't receive a notification email, so I just read through your response). My sarcasm wasn't aimed so much at you, but more at the fact that there was no source link in the article - and as the article was written, early-adopters certainly had cause to complain.

@Marshillboy

I don't understand this perspective at all. Think of it like an extensive demo, one you could theoretically play as a full product, for free. Then, if you like what you've played, you can pay some money and get more of it.

The notion of a game as a solitary, "all things included" product is outdated and, well, dead. That is not the world in which we live, nor should it be. This new model allows developers to be more dynamic with their content creation, and consumers to be more discerning in their purchases. If you want all the things, then *buy all the things*.

Your arguments stem from a desire to keep things like they have been for no better reason than to keep them as they have been. And that's stupid. DLC is not evil. Microtransactions are not evil. They're giving you a free base product and allowing you to obtain more a la carte. That's smart.

@eat it

Yeah...I'm not so into Wave-Based-Survival-Modes, as it were, but I do love putting my money into Remedy's pocket.

Also, and I don't know why I get this feeling, but I keep thinking they're going to do something with Rockstar soon...after their peripheral involvement with Max Payne 3 and their less-than-stellar experience being published by Microsoft, I think it would be interesting to see those guys team up again. Totally wild speculation! But I can't help but wonder if it might make sense for both of them.

@Scuffles

Well, it seems like it's mostly on its way there...this is very similar to a F2P model, in the sense that it only slows progress for "non-premium players," as it were, rather than entirely locking out content.

@Mcmax3000

Oh thank goodness, I was afraid I was the only one who actually read the article.

@The Pork

Kind of, or at least the credits unlock equipment that allows you to access those modes. But you can also earn credits from singleplayer stuff, so the end result is that a used purchaser can grind their way to all the content, whereas a pass-holder would have a faster path.

@drunkingamebar

This game doesn't lock out multiplayer from used purchasers, just slows their unlock progression. You can still play with your buddies if you buy this used.

@eat it

My understanding was that it simply locks out one way of earning credits. It seems that you're still able to earn credits through offline play modes (which matches what I've seen of the game), and thus unlock all the content.

Frankly, this seems like a much less offensive way of handling an online pass than simply locking out all the multiplayer. It's basically saying "hey, you can progress faster through your unlocks if you give us $10," assuming you haven't already given them $10 by buying the game new.