Link.

So used copies/rentals won't have working MP unless you purchase a Online Pass.

I don't want to be a douche but... didn't we already know this? Years (literally) ago?

Good. Give your money to DICE, not gamestop. Paying them's not going to make games better

@mr_ace said:

Good. Give your money to DICE, not gamestop. Paying them's not going to make games better

Exactly this.

It feels silly to have this thread show up for every game that does this.

This is an EA game. Didn't they make the whole "online pass" thing?

Also, I hope it is the same as BF:BC2 where it would give free maps.

I bet we aren't gonna see free maps this time around. You could play BC2 without the code it came with. Now multilayer is locked without the code so that's the thing your getting.

I think this is getting to the point where it's a surprise if something doesn't have an online pass....

As someone who likes buying games new, I don't have a problem with this.

@Shakezula84: if you buy it new you get the back to karkand pack, which is 4 maps, so yea you do still get free maps

I bet we aren't gonna see free maps this time around. You could play BC2 without the code it came with. Now multilayer is locked without the code so that's the thing your getting.

What's new?

@AlexW00d said:

@mr_ace said:

Good. Give your money to DICE, not gamestop. Paying them's not going to make games better

Exactly this.

But they already got their money. *Sigh*... I'm lost. What exactly are we arguing about?

@pw2566ch said:

@AlexW00d said:

@mr_ace said:

Good. Give your money to DICE, not gamestop. Paying them's not going to make games better

Exactly this.

But they already got their money. *Sigh*... I'm lost. What exactly are we arguing about?

I wouldn't worry about it. People are mad because Gamestop made over $3 billion one year. I mean everyone has to realize that not everyone can afford a new game. They look for the cheap way possible like I do. Go onto Craigslist and you'll see people selling all kinds of new games anywhere between $40-50. I'm dead serious. I like my games as cheap as possible.

@mr_ace said:

Good. Give your money to DICE, not gamestop. Paying them's not going to make games better

Exactly this.

Better not fucking use that on pc.

They used online pass in Bad Company 2, this shouldn't come as a shock.

@Shakezula84 said:

@awe_stuck just the one map back. I doubt they would only release one map pack. This is EA's "Call of Duty killer". EA will have DICE make plenty of DOC. And sorry to everyone about the two posts. My bad.

The map pack has 4 maps. But yes, thanks for the CoD killer post. BF3 is way better then the MW3 expansion pack.

@ch13696 said:

@pw2566ch said:

@AlexW00d said:

@mr_ace said:

Good. Give your money to DICE, not gamestop. Paying them's not going to make games better

Exactly this.

But they already got their money. *Sigh*... I'm lost. What exactly are we arguing about?

I wouldn't worry about it. People are mad because Gamestop made over $3 billion one year. I mean everyone has to realize that not everyone can afford a new game. They look for the cheap way possible like I do. Go onto Craigslist and you'll see people selling all kinds of new games anywhere between $40-50. I'm dead serious. I like my games as cheap as possible.

Yeah, I actually agree. I've always been getting my games really cheap. In this kind of economy what else are you going to do? Also why Steam has a lot of popularity. Because of their deals. And if it wasn't for people trying to get rid of their games, then I wouldn't be playing any video games.

@pw2566ch:

if you don't want to pay as much for a game, just wait a bit after launch. unless it's a game i have to have, i always wait for a good deal, and i always get a good deal. I boght mass effect 2 a couple months after release for about £15, in fact most games i buy are for around that price, unless i can't wait for it. This way, i get a new game, don't have to risk some piece of shit scratched copy, and all my money goes to the developer. Used games are usually a rip off anyway. I'm cool with people selling their games on ebay or whatever, but trading in a game for £5 only for them to turn round to sell it to someone else for £25 is total bullshit

@ch13696 said:

@pw2566ch said:

@AlexW00d said:

@mr_ace said:

Good. Give your money to DICE, not gamestop. Paying them's not going to make games better

Exactly this.

But they already got their money. *Sigh*... I'm lost. What exactly are we arguing about?

I wouldn't worry about it. People are mad because Gamestop made over $3 billion one year. I mean everyone has to realize that not everyone can afford a new game. They look for the cheap way possible like I do. Go onto Craigslist and you'll see people selling all kinds of new games anywhere between $40-50. I'm dead serious. I like my games as cheap as possible.

What I don't like is the fact that Gamestop/whoever don't deserve to make £30/$50 whatever on a game that they had no part in. And if you do buy the game preowned and have to pay a tenner to EA/Dice, what of it? If you play multiplayer you are using their resources to do so, and they need money to keep those services going, especially if they provide servers for players.

And you may like to pay less money for videogames, whatever, just wait 'til they are in the sale.

No no no give your money to this giant mega corporation not that one!

@blueduck said:

No no no give your money to this giant mega corporation not that one!

I'd much rather give my money to the corporation that actually made the product rather then one who literally did nothing. >.>

@CL60 said:

@blueduck said:

No no no give your money to this giant mega corporation not that one!

I'd much rather give my money to the corporation that actually made the product rather then one who literally did nothing. >.>

So between EA and GameStop? Which one actually made the product?

@Spoonman671 said:

It feels silly to have this thread show up for every game that does this.

You mean every game EA releases from now till the end of time? EA aren't gunna stop doing this, the next time I wanna see a thread like this is when the title is:

"Multiplayer DOESN'T use an online pass"

Was going to just Gamefly the game, but now I'll just pre-order it.

These online passes work on me every time. Game publishers need to get smart and do this for all games, or go the digital route and only sell the right to play their games.

@blueduck said:

@CL60 said:

@blueduck said:

No no no give your money to this giant mega corporation not that one!

I'd much rather give my money to the corporation that actually made the product rather then one who literally did nothing. >.>

So between EA and GameStop? Which one actually made the product?

'This'

@blueduck said:

@CL60 said:

@blueduck said:

No no no give your money to this giant mega corporation not that one!

I'd much rather give my money to the corporation that actually made the product rather then one who literally did nothing. >.>

So between EA and GameStop? Which one actually made the product?

Obviously people want to see DICE rewarded for their efforts, but I think everyone needs to step back. The "online pass" thing is really not that big a deal since it IS for multiplayer (unlike Arkham), but the Gamestop haters need to consider some things -

1. Where the fuck do you think used games come from? Do they magically appear pre-used by the Used Game Fairy? No, they're bought new, as are the vast, vast majority of games in the market.

2. Without used game sales, I imagine there'd be no Gamestop. Good luck finding niche titles at the Wal-Mart.

3. All this really does is give Activision the OK to use the "Multiplayer: Free with every copy of Modern Warfare 3" line in the MOTD for that game, the same way they did for Black Ops.

4. With all of the games they've made, EA's only made $10-15 million. Yeah, that's a bit of scratch, but not nearly enough to support the development of even one Battlefield, much less all the games that have included pack-in codes. Not only that, but there are plenty of people who will trade in games without ever using those codes, giving the used customer all the perks of new anyway... So what's the point?

5. EA all but told MS to take their service and shove it, that EA wanted to have sole control specifically so they could shut games down every 18 months, making the online passes even less valuable. EA's the only company that routinely shuts down servers specifically to force people to get the newer game to start with.

Personally, if it weren't Gamestop we were talking about, no one would be supporting this juvenile nonsense. Me, I'm indifferent as it's not core story/campaign content, but can we at least call bullshit what it is and get over the irrational hatred of a retail chain?

@blueduck said:

@CL60 said:

@blueduck said:

No no no give your money to this giant mega corporation not that one!

I'd much rather give my money to the corporation that actually made the product rather then one who literally did nothing. >.>

So between EA and GameStop? Which one actually made the product?

EA sure as hell did a lot more than GameStop. Publishers fund the game you know. I owuld much rather give my money to the people who helped make the game rather than GameStop...

@YukoAsho said:

@blueduck said:

@CL60 said:

@blueduck said:

No no no give your money to this giant mega corporation not that one!

I'd much rather give my money to the corporation that actually made the product rather then one who literally did nothing. >.>

So between EA and GameStop? Which one actually made the product?

Obviously people want to see DICE rewarded for their efforts, but I think everyone needs to step back. The "online pass" thing is really not that big a deal since it IS for multiplayer (unlike Arkham), but the Gamestop haters need to consider some things -

1. Where the fuck do you think used games come from? Do they magically appear pre-used by the Used Game Fairy? No, they're bought new, as are the vast, vast majority of games in the market.

2. Without used game sales, I imagine there'd be no Gamestop. Good luck finding niche titles at the Wal-Mart.

3. All this really does is give Activision the OK to use the "Multiplayer: Free with every copy of Modern Warfare 3" line in the MOTD for that game, the same way they did for Black Ops.

4. With all of the games they've made, EA's only made $10-15 million. Yeah, that's a bit of scratch, but not nearly enough to support the development of even one Battlefield, much less all the games that have included pack-in codes. Not only that, but there are plenty of people who will trade in games without ever using those codes, giving the used customer all the perks of new anyway... So what's the point?

5. EA all but told MS to take their service and shove it, that EA wanted to have sole control specifically so they could shut games down every 18 months, making the online passes even less valuable. EA's the only company that routinely shuts down servers specifically to force people to get the newer game to start with.

Personally, if it weren't Gamestop we were talking about, no one would be supporting this juvenile nonsense. Me, I'm indifferent as it's not core story/campaign content, but can we at least call bullshit what it is and get over the irrational hatred of a retail chain?

I'm not hating on GameStop, I just think it's silly to complain about online passes. Either pay the people who made the game, or don't play on their servers.

It feels silly to have this thread show up for every game that does this.

@DeF said:

@Spoonman671 said:

It feels silly to have this thread show up for every game that does this.

especially since EVERY game by EA is going to have an online pass ... and it's been like this for more than a year and they even said that every game will have this at some point, I believe. this is like making a big deal every time a game has achievements.

That's a good point but the achievement comparison is a bad one. I'm a PC gamer so it doesn't even matter to me. I just like watching console gamers get screwed more and more and at the same time still continue going to the ends of the Earth to defend the companies doing it.

@blueduck said:

@DeF said:

@Spoonman671 said:

It feels silly to have this thread show up for every game that does this.

especially since EVERY game by EA is going to have an online pass ... and it's been like this for more than a year and they even said that every game will have this at some point, I believe. this is like making a big deal every time a game has achievements.

That's a good point but the achievement comparison is a bad one. I'm a PC gamer so it doesn't even matter to me. I just like watching console gamers get screwed more and more and at the same time still continue going to the ends of the Earth to defend the companies doing it.

don't expect good comparisons after 24hours of Octoberkast!

I find it very hard to justify buying videogames, especially at the prices these days. Trading in old games allows me to buy more new ones. Take away my ability to trade in old games, and I simply stop buying as many new ones.

And then you can blame piracy for the decrease in sales.

Everybody wins.

I bet it will also have a Season Pass, unless they already announced that and I didn't pay attention.

@YukoAsho: Gamestop sucks.

@SeriouslyNow - I've never had a problem with 'em, but then again that's because I'm a rational human being.

@CL60 - Hey, no argument there. Most of the games I buy are done so new, so long as the meat of the single player isn't locked away online. It especially makes sense in multiplayer as they need the money coming in for servers. I just don't think the used games market is anywhere near the issue that EA and the GameStop haters make it out to be.

In other words, online passes for online multiplayer (better let me do local!) are fine, online passes for parts of the main story are not, and both sides of the debate look stupid and short-sighted.

There are no used game sales on PC, so you could count the number of fucks I give on a quadriplegic's hands.

@mr_ace said:

@pw2566ch:

if you don't want to pay as much for a game, just wait a bit after launch. unless it's a game i have to have, i always wait for a good deal, and i always get a good deal. I boght mass effect 2 a couple months after release for about £15, in fact most games i buy are for around that price, unless i can't wait for it. This way, i get a new game, don't have to risk some piece of shit scratched copy, and all my money goes to the developer. Used games are usually a rip off anyway. I'm cool with people selling their games on ebay or whatever, but trading in a game for £5 only for them to turn round to sell it to someone else for £25 is total bullshit

I think the reason why people aren't noticing this is because of the incentives they give people for trade-ins. For example, get an extra 50% trade in credit towards MW3 or something like that. Of course it's still not the best because if you were to trade in saaaaaaay... Assassin's Creed Brotherhood you would probably get $10 credit for it. Throw in the 50% and that's only getting you $5 more. So really not an advantage, but people aren't seeing that.

Fortunately fore me, I feed off those idiots. I understand that the new games will be cheaper later on, but the best part is that once a new game becomes cheaper, so does the used version. So there's no point in me buying the new copy. The only thing I actually do wait on is Steam. I know there will be sales and I always wait for the right time.

@AlexW00d said:

@ch13696 said:

@pw2566ch said:

@AlexW00d said:

@mr_ace said:

Good. Give your money to DICE, not gamestop. Paying them's not going to make games better

Exactly this.

But they already got their money. *Sigh*... I'm lost. What exactly are we arguing about?

I wouldn't worry about it. People are mad because Gamestop made over $3 billion one year. I mean everyone has to realize that not everyone can afford a new game. They look for the cheap way possible like I do. Go onto Craigslist and you'll see people selling all kinds of new games anywhere between $40-50. I'm dead serious. I like my games as cheap as possible.

What I don't like is the fact that Gamestop/whoever don't deserve to make £30/$50 whatever on a game that they had no part in. And if you do buy the game preowned and have to pay a tenner to EA/Dice, what of it? If you play multiplayer you are using their resources to do so, and they need money to keep those services going, especially if they provide servers for players.

And you may like to pay less money for videogames, whatever, just wait 'til they are in the sale.

Yeah, Gamestop does rip people off there, but blame the people falling for it. If no one doesn't like the way Gamestop does business then they shouldn't sell their games there. And what resources are we talking about? Are you talking about running servers and such? You understand that people rent servers, right? Other than that, there's plenty of companies that run servers without even asking for a return. Take a look at Valve. They built Team Fortress 2, a few years later offering it for free, and not even asking for an online pass.

@Three0neFive said:

There are no used game sales on PC, so you could count the number of fucks I give on a quadriplegic's hands.

Err... gross.

@pw2566ch: Private servers exist in PC games though, we aren't talking about PC games, the online passes are never for PC games due the fact that you can't have a used PC game. And even so, in the case of BF3, EA will store all of our character data and stats on their servers. Personally, I don't care for this anyway, and I don't really think these passes should exist; but I would sooner them exist and developers earn the money they deserve, than used game sales stay as rampant as they are and developers lose out on money they deserve.

@AlexW00d said:

@ch13696 said:

@pw2566ch said:

@AlexW00d said:

@mr_ace said:

Good. Give your money to DICE, not gamestop. Paying them's not going to make games better

Exactly this.

But they already got their money. *Sigh*... I'm lost. What exactly are we arguing about?

I wouldn't worry about it. People are mad because Gamestop made over $3 billion one year. I mean everyone has to realize that not everyone can afford a new game. They look for the cheap way possible like I do. Go onto Craigslist and you'll see people selling all kinds of new games anywhere between $40-50. I'm dead serious. I like my games as cheap as possible.

What I don't like is the fact that Gamestop/whoever don't deserve to make £30/$50 whatever on a game that they had no part in. And if you do buy the game preowned and have to pay a tenner to EA/Dice, what of it? If you play multiplayer you are using their resources to do so, and they need money to keep those services going, especially if they provide servers for players.

And you may like to pay less money for videogames, whatever, just wait 'til they are in the sale.

One person could use those services before the game was sold on and one person could use them afterwards. If multiplayer is advertised as being an inherent part of the product, then to my mind, access to the required services was already paid for when the product was first sold, and that access belongs with the copy. If multiplayer access is to be considered a service which is seperate and seperable from the product itself, then it should be marketed as such.

GameStop / GAME etc. aren't making $x because they had something to do with creating the game; they're making $x for providing a convenient (and often expensive to operate) location and opportunity for people to buy and sell used games. That convenience has value, and that value is determined by the market. That most people still choose to sell low and buy high from GameStop etc. -rather than trade directly with each other at closer price points, which they are absolutely free to do- tells you that these retailers are obviously providing a service which a lot of people value and are prepared to pay for.

I have no problem with games being sold as a non-transferable service if that's what the industry wants to do and is going to be up front about it, but I don't think they get to sell as a product, take money in exchange for a copy of their game and then act like they still have some moral claim on that copy. They don't. They can own the copy or they can sell it; they can't sell it and still own it.

bleh... is mw3 doing this too? I don't want to buy either because I'm probably just playing a couple hours of each multiplayer and the singleplayer so renting is the option for me.

@CL60 said:

@blueduck said:

No no no give your money to this giant mega corporation not that one!

I'd much rather give my money to the corporation that actually made the product rather then one who literally did nothing. >.>

yup, john riccitiello makes the games himself. except not really, because dice made the game.

@Toms115 said:

@CL60 said:

@blueduck said:

No no no give your money to this giant mega corporation not that one!

I'd much rather give my money to the corporation that actually made the product rather then one who literally did nothing. >.>

yup, john riccitiello makes the games himself. except not really, because dice made the game.

@AlexW00d said:

@pw2566ch: Private servers exist in PC games though, we aren't talking about PC games, the online passes are never for PC games due the fact that you can't have a used PC game. And even so, in the case of BF3, EA will store all of our character data and stats on their servers. Personally, I don't care for this anyway, and I don't really think these passes should exist; but I would sooner them exist and developers earn the money they deserve, than used game sales stay as rampant as they are and developers lose out on money they deserve.

It sounds like this is the kind of argument that will always have two sides. Either way, I will always continue to buy discounted games or used games. Whichever comes first. Unfortunately, I hate to say this, but I'm not in the service of the publishers or developers. Despite them making great games. I'm in the service of my budget. If publishers decide to go the way of strictly new games via online activation's, then they either need to offer sales and deals like Steam and other digital distributors does or I'm just going to have to stick to PC gaming.

@Jimbo said:

@AlexW00d said:

@ch13696 said:

@pw2566ch said:

@AlexW00d said:

@mr_ace said:

Good. Give your money to DICE, not gamestop. Paying them's not going to make games better

Exactly this.

But they already got their money. *Sigh*... I'm lost. What exactly are we arguing about?

I wouldn't worry about it. People are mad because Gamestop made over $3 billion one year. I mean everyone has to realize that not everyone can afford a new game. They look for the cheap way possible like I do. Go onto Craigslist and you'll see people selling all kinds of new games anywhere between $40-50. I'm dead serious. I like my games as cheap as possible.

What I don't like is the fact that Gamestop/whoever don't deserve to make £30/$50 whatever on a game that they had no part in. And if you do buy the game preowned and have to pay a tenner to EA/Dice, what of it? If you play multiplayer you are using their resources to do so, and they need money to keep those services going, especially if they provide servers for players.

And you may like to pay less money for videogames, whatever, just wait 'til they are in the sale.

I have no problem with games being sold as a non-transferable service if that's what the industry wants to do and is going to be up front about it, but I don't think they get to sell as a product, take money in exchange for a copy of their game and then act like they still have some moral claim on that copy. They don't. They can own the copy or they can sell it; they can't sell it and still own it.

Exactly what happened with the case between Sony and Hotz. I was on Hotz side the whole time because I knew when I payed $600 for my PS3 that it belonged to me.