Looks like no reason to rent BF3- Online Pass Required?

It looks like you may need to have a new copy of Battlefield 3 to play online, or purchase the online pass from EA on the marketplace. This seems to be EA's MO anymore.

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/10/14/battlefield-3-will-employ-online-pass-required-for-multiplayer/

~mrmiller

boo! guess I'll take it off my gamefly q

S7 mrmiller wrote:It looks like you may need to have a new copy of Battlefield 3 to play online, or purchase the online pass from EA on the marketplace. This seems to be EA's MO anymore.

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/10/14/battlefield-3-will-employ-online-pass-required-for-multiplayer/

~mrmiller

Don't blame EA. Blame Gamestop.

Gamestop didn't make EA add the online pass. Used games should have nothing to do with it. EA says it needs to do the online pass because the servers cost money. Therefore it has nothing to do with used sales. So if they sell 100,000 games, lets say they need 100,000 slots on the server (probably more like 10%-50%). How does a used or rented game effect this? Still only one person per game can be online, so what makes them need more money for more servers?

Now I can't blame EA for wanting to make as much money as possible, but don't lie to us and say it is because "servers cost money". The only ones to blame are the people who historically have bought the online pass and made it a profitable business model for EA to continue to use, and in turn their new Modus Operandi.

~mrmiller

Just another way that EA is f*cking over the gamers. Yeah a used game doesn't earn them any money but they got paid for the original purchase. This is like GM charging you a fee so you can drive my car if I sell it to you.

Anyway, I guess I won't rent this because I'm not renting a "partial" game that requires me to fork out money to use the whole thing when I don't even own the game. I could see paying for extra ccontent that might be included in a purchase (ie. COD Elite) but this is ridiculous.

Yeah, I dislike the online pass situation but fortunately I am buying this game so I am ok. Still don't like it. Especially for my GF games.

S7 mrmiller wrote:Gamestop didn't make EA add the online pass. Used games should have nothing to do with it. EA says it needs to do the online pass because the servers cost money. Therefore it has nothing to do with used sales. So if they sell 100,000 games, lets say they need 100,000 slots on the server (probably more like 10%-50%). How does a used or rented game effect this? Still only one person per game can be online, so what makes them need more money for more servers?

Now I can't blame EA for wanting to make as much money as possible, but don't lie to us and say it is because "servers cost money". The only ones to blame are the people who historically have bought the online pass and made it a profitable business model for EA to continue to use, and in turn their new Modus Operandi.

~mrmiller

Touched a nerve did I? Sorry. I get that the so called reason is to cover server costs, and I agree its bs. The reason I said blame gamestop was because the game companies are seeing how much money they are losing out on due to the used game business. As I am sure you are quite aware, many companies have been introducing these kind of charges more and more. Its a money grab that's for sure but because I buy my games I really do not care all that much. If I rented game likes a lot of you do, I would be a bit irate as well.

There have been many times where I have been unsure as to whether or not I want to drop $60 for a game so i'd rent it or borrow it from a friend. This move from EA puts an end to that for their games. This will probably kill the trade-in value since buyers will have to buy the pass to play online. Another reason why I don't want to buy it because while I know trade-in value is less than what yoy paid, I don't want to be stuck with a game I won't play or screwed when I trade it in.

I was pissed when they got the NFL license because while I liked the gameplay of Madden more than NFL 2kxx, I liked the 2kxx presentation more. And how many years did it take for EA to give Madden some quality presentation, something like 7 or 8 years. EA is just a bunch of greedy bastards.

Ya it's weak they should at least let you play online for a week or until you reach a certain level in multiplayer. Also I played bf2 online for a few days and didn't like it. I was gonna buy bf3 until I played the beta, then I was gonna rent it and maybe buy it if I liked it, now I'm gonna skip it, so EA just lost a pretty good chance of getting $60 bucks out of me = marketing fail

S7 SockPuppet wrote:There have been many times where I have been unsure as to whether or not I want to drop $60 for a game so i'd rent it or borrow it from a friend. This move from EA puts an end to that for their games. This will probably kill the trade-in value since buyers will have to buy the pass to play online. Another reason why I don't want to buy it because while I know trade-in value is less than what yoy paid, I don't want to be stuck with a game I won't play or screwed when I trade it in.

I was pissed when they got the NFL license because while I liked the gameplay of Madden more than NFL 2kxx, I liked the 2kxx presentation more. And how many years did it take for EA to give Madden some quality presentation, something like 7 or 8 years. EA is just a bunch of greedy bastards.

I foresee the trade in value being the usual amount. Gamestop in their little greedy hearts will forget to mention to customers that they may have to buy an online pass to play.

DROOPYmcC00L wrote:Ya it's weak they should at least let you play online for a week or until you reach a certain level in multiplayer. Also I played bf2 online for a few days and didn't like it. I was gonna buy bf3 until I played the beta, then I was gonna rent it and maybe buy it if I liked it, now I'm gonna skip it, so EA just lost a pretty good chance of getting $60 bucks out of me = marketing fail

That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't mind paying for something I'm going to keep but let me try out the full product, not just a beta. Many XBL enabled games come with a 2-day XBL trial. They need to think of a better way to do this.

S7 Zalacious wrote:

S7 mrmiller wrote:Gamestop didn't make EA add the online pass. Used games should have nothing to do with it. EA says it needs to do the online pass because the servers cost money. Therefore it has nothing to do with used sales. So if they sell 100,000 games, lets say they need 100,000 slots on the server (probably more like 10%-50%). How does a used or rented game effect this? Still only one person per game can be online, so what makes them need more money for more servers?

Now I can't blame EA for wanting to make as much money as possible, but don't lie to us and say it is because "servers cost money". The only ones to blame are the people who historically have bought the online pass and made it a profitable business model for EA to continue to use, and in turn their new Modus Operandi.

~mrmiller

Touched a nerve did I? Sorry. I get that the so called reason is to cover server costs, and I agree its bs. The reason I said blame gamestop was because the game companies are seeing how much money they are losing out on due to the used game business. As I am sure you are quite aware, many companies have been introducing these kind of charges more and more. Its a money grab that's for sure but because I buy my games I really do not care all that much. If I rented game likes a lot of you do, I would be a bit irate as well.

No worries- no nerve touched here. I just wanted to point out the real reason they do it is because we (the consumer) will buy it. Just like those who complain about the COD map packs being $15 instead of $10, then rush out and buy them so they are now all $15. Like I said, I can't blame EA (a company in business to make money) for going for the cash grab.

DROOPYmcC00L wrote:Ya it's weak they should at least let you play online for a week or until you reach a certain level in multiplayer. Also I played bf2 online for a few days and didn't like it. I was gonna buy bf3 until I played the beta, then I was gonna rent it and maybe buy it if I liked it, now I'm gonna skip it, so EA just lost a pretty good chance of getting $60 bucks out of me = marketing fail

That sounds like a much better business model- let people rank up to something low, like 10, and then if they are hooked and have points available, I bet anything they would purchase the pass. Probably would sell more that way.


~mrmiller

Yup, seeing all the new games go to the season pass model has been a bit annoying. The xbox deva need to take a note from all the mmo's that do trials or level caps for free.

AtrumX wrote:Yup, seeing all the new games go to the season pass model has been a bit annoying. The xbox deva need to take a note from all the mmo's that do trials or level caps for free.

I agree. I don't mind paying for a season pass to a game that I like because I'll probably get all the DLC, but I don't want to have to pay for everything offered for the game before I get to try out the full game (including online play) if I rent or borrow it.

Well, as I said earlier I don't like the online pass thing. I think that it should work like Droopy said and allow online play up to a certain level. I would have no problem with that. In fact I think that Homefront actually did that. Just wish more publishers did. But you can't just blame EA. Pretty much everyone in the industry is jumping on board. Whether it's an online pass like it is here or actual in-game content like with the new Batman game coming out tomorrow (Catwoman).

Both piss me off, but especially the in-game content. I have heard that Catwoman has a ton of content including her own progression, gadgets, moves, missions and even a completely different opening movie to the game if you have her unlocked. But don't worry, if you rent it or buy it used you can still get that content for $10. What a joke.

Plus, it's not like the rental companies don't but hundreds of copies of the game. I think that games sales would be hurt more by rental companies not buying their game (or going out of business). I know that if I could not rent some of these games, I would not play them. I can't buy every game that comes out. So the rental companies buy it for me and I get to play. Win win. Take away rentals and not only do they loose the rental sale but they also lose my purchase because I am not spending $60 on something that might be garbage.

/rant

S7 Interseptor wrote:Plus, it's not like the rental companies don't but hundreds of copies of the game. I think that games sales would be hurt more by rental companies not buying their game (or going out of business). I know that if I could not rent some of these games, I would not play them. I can't buy every game that comes out. So the rental companies buy it for me and I get to play. Win win. Take away rentals and not only do they loose the rental sale but they also lose my purchase because I am not spending $60 on something that might be garbage./rant

Well put. This is exactly what I'm thinking.