surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Meh, no biggy. PCs have cd keys that stopped people playing the entire game if they bought it second hand, this just stop the mp.
"JUST CONFIRMED 360 IS THE PLATFORM TO BUY MASS EFFECT 3
THANKS FOR SHOWING UR TRU COLORS $ONY"
Could you perhaps point out in this article or the source where it states that this is only for the PS3 version? Or are you just making an argument that adheres to your myopic world view?
THANKS FOR SHOWING UR TRU COLORS $ONY"
Could you perhaps point out in this article or the source where it states that this is only for the PS3 version? Or are you just making an argument that adheres to your myopic world view?
@pokota
Bad analogy. There was never a time where you never had to pay for phone service when you bought just the physical phone. Video games have had a precedent of not charging extra for online play until very recently. (Excluding MMOs obviously).
Also, when you buy a used game or rent a game, the server was already being paid for with that new purchase. It's just that the original buyer isn't using it anymore, and now the used buyer takes his/her place in that server spot.
I can't see why online passes are defended so much when there is absolutely no positive for the consumer. Am I missing something here?
Bad analogy. There was never a time where you never had to pay for phone service when you bought just the physical phone. Video games have had a precedent of not charging extra for online play until very recently. (Excluding MMOs obviously).
Also, when you buy a used game or rent a game, the server was already being paid for with that new purchase. It's just that the original buyer isn't using it anymore, and now the used buyer takes his/her place in that server spot.
I can't see why online passes are defended so much when there is absolutely no positive for the consumer. Am I missing something here?
i see this as more like the RAGEpass. which i dont have a problem with. if it doesnt actually affect the outcome of the game then i dont care.
unlike the multiplayer passes which disable a feature.
unlike the multiplayer passes which disable a feature.
@Jimmyx
I no rite!? Who the heck plays ME's singleplayer anyway? And what's up with the stupid conversation wheel? I'm playing it for the totally TITS COMBAT, not for actually paying attention to the story or characters! And f*ck those who hates the online pass system, only HARDCORE online gamers who enjoy the same TITS combat understands EA's apparent love for gamers!!
Brofist yeah!
*bro laughter*
Shut the f*ck up.
I no rite!? Who the heck plays ME's singleplayer anyway? And what's up with the stupid conversation wheel? I'm playing it for the totally TITS COMBAT, not for actually paying attention to the story or characters! And f*ck those who hates the online pass system, only HARDCORE online gamers who enjoy the same TITS combat understands EA's apparent love for gamers!!
Brofist yeah!
*bro laughter*
Shut the f*ck up.
I don't care for the practice, but it's ME3; EA's kinda got me by the balls on this one. The game could come with a wee little man in the box who jumps out and punches me in the dick and I'd STILL buy it anyway.
@Ace829
I'm not sure precedent is enough reason for something to never change. As with any other service, I don't think the idea that something "has already been paid for" applies. You are not a customer of EA, for example, but a customer of the person who sold you the game.
As for the positive, I think this is the real point. The negative for me is a little extra time to type in the code; the positive is that more money is going into the industry, which means less studios closing, and more games being greenlighted. Basically, my choice is, do I want what's best for people who buy used games, or do I want what's best for me, which is more videogames being made? That's not a hard decision for me.
I'm not sure precedent is enough reason for something to never change. As with any other service, I don't think the idea that something "has already been paid for" applies. You are not a customer of EA, for example, but a customer of the person who sold you the game.
As for the positive, I think this is the real point. The negative for me is a little extra time to type in the code; the positive is that more money is going into the industry, which means less studios closing, and more games being greenlighted. Basically, my choice is, do I want what's best for people who buy used games, or do I want what's best for me, which is more videogames being made? That's not a hard decision for me.
@Jimmyx
"SORRY ment to say "some of the million peeps who boght ME2 didnt buy it fir its panzyass predictable story..." Im sure lots of poor bastards did buy it for the sad romance options BUT EACH HIS OWN ROLF"
That's... actually the closest I've seen you ever come to being tolerant and reasonable. Keep up the good work.
"SORRY ment to say "some of the million peeps who boght ME2 didnt buy it fir its panzyass predictable story..." Im sure lots of poor bastards did buy it for the sad romance options BUT EACH HIS OWN ROLF"
That's... actually the closest I've seen you ever come to being tolerant and reasonable. Keep up the good work.
This little stunt is proving how cheap and ridiculous gaming companies are getting nowdays. I'm buying ME3 when it comes out but I think making someone pay ten dollars just because they bought it used is lame and I'm not gonna give in to that sort of junk
GUIZ KEEP POSTIN FUNNAY PICTURES SO THIS ENTIRE COMMENTS SECTION CAN BE COMMENTS OF THE WEAK LOLZ !!!111!!!!!1!
Bioware certainly has become a much more "establishment-developer" in recent years, hasn't it? It's part of the fuckin system; they got bought out by corporate interests around the time when Mass Effect 2 came out. Then we saw the monstrosity that was DA2. A shame.
I’d like to believe that this is just like the Cerberus Network thing, but when you couple it with the rumours that Xbox Magazine have some big Mass Effect 3 feature reveal next month things start to look a bit....ehhhhhhhhh.
Personally, I don’t think Mass Effects gameplay is good enough to support multiplayer. When taken as a whole, along with everything else the game offers, the shooting’s fine, quite good even, but as a standalone multiplayer experience, no. Semi-tank controls and somewhat shallow powers do not make for online fun times.
Personally, I don’t think Mass Effects gameplay is good enough to support multiplayer. When taken as a whole, along with everything else the game offers, the shooting’s fine, quite good even, but as a standalone multiplayer experience, no. Semi-tank controls and somewhat shallow powers do not make for online fun times.
I already have the standard edition pre-ordered, so does that mean I would have to buy the special edition to get the online pass? (Not that I care about multi-player but why would I also get fucked over when I get it new)
I have no problem with them adding multiplayer. I feel it could work with the gameplay.
I do have a problem with online pass stuff on the other hand.
I do have a problem with online pass stuff on the other hand.
@pokota
Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the "already been paid for part".
However, I have a problem with the second part. You see, I'm can't buy the fact that servers need to be maintained with this money. I never heard anything about developers struggling to maintain server costs. That is the reason online passes were implemented right? To maintain server costs? Aren't those costs cheap as hell, anyway? Why would I need to pay for all that when many other developers (even the smaller ones) are chugging along fine without charging. Sorry, but I just smell bullshit when they say things like that.
Even if the money is used to pump more money into the development for games, why should I be responsible for whether or not a studio gets closed? It feels like I'm paying for the industries mistakes rather than actually getting anything positive from this. Many of the big devs and publishers dug their own hole when they decided to make these games with massive budgets that may or may not fail, pump the living crap out of franchises until they're bled dry, price every single game at $60 on release date, don't advertise many of their releases (Singularity, The Sabotuer), or release little known games in the worst dates possible (releasing a game next to Call Of Duty).
If you want to support the industry, I believe that rewarding developers and publishers for their good ideas are the best way to do that. Just blindly giving them $10 or $15 for a feature that's almost always free in the realm of video games for no justifiable reason should not be rewarded because it rewards that kind of behavior and you might see more ways that video games become fragmented and charged more than ever because that behavior is accepted.
I may be buying Halo 4 new because, despite what many may say about it, Microsoft and Bungie handled the franchise really well despite the fact that they could have bled the series and their fans money dry. Most importantly, those games were really good.
On a different point, used buyers aren't the only gamers being affected. What about the gamers who want to rent a game for the multiplayer, only to find out that they must pay an additional $15 on top of the rental fee? It would hurt companies like Gamefly and give less options for consumers who just want a weekend of Battlefield 3 with their buddies for only $7.
Feels like I rambled a bit, but I hope you understand where I'm coming from.
Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the "already been paid for part".
However, I have a problem with the second part. You see, I'm can't buy the fact that servers need to be maintained with this money. I never heard anything about developers struggling to maintain server costs. That is the reason online passes were implemented right? To maintain server costs? Aren't those costs cheap as hell, anyway? Why would I need to pay for all that when many other developers (even the smaller ones) are chugging along fine without charging. Sorry, but I just smell bullshit when they say things like that.
Even if the money is used to pump more money into the development for games, why should I be responsible for whether or not a studio gets closed? It feels like I'm paying for the industries mistakes rather than actually getting anything positive from this. Many of the big devs and publishers dug their own hole when they decided to make these games with massive budgets that may or may not fail, pump the living crap out of franchises until they're bled dry, price every single game at $60 on release date, don't advertise many of their releases (Singularity, The Sabotuer), or release little known games in the worst dates possible (releasing a game next to Call Of Duty).
If you want to support the industry, I believe that rewarding developers and publishers for their good ideas are the best way to do that. Just blindly giving them $10 or $15 for a feature that's almost always free in the realm of video games for no justifiable reason should not be rewarded because it rewards that kind of behavior and you might see more ways that video games become fragmented and charged more than ever because that behavior is accepted.
I may be buying Halo 4 new because, despite what many may say about it, Microsoft and Bungie handled the franchise really well despite the fact that they could have bled the series and their fans money dry. Most importantly, those games were really good.
On a different point, used buyers aren't the only gamers being affected. What about the gamers who want to rent a game for the multiplayer, only to find out that they must pay an additional $15 on top of the rental fee? It would hurt companies like Gamefly and give less options for consumers who just want a weekend of Battlefield 3 with their buddies for only $7.
Feels like I rambled a bit, but I hope you understand where I'm coming from.
You want mega budget games that are huge, and take years to develop? Than this is the price you pay. Feel free to join us here in the present day, Jim.
To quote the Jimquisition on this one: "HOW. FUCKING. DARE. YOU." That's all I've got to say on this, regardless of what this is for, it still seems utterly pointless.
@Ace829
I understand what you're saying, and I even agree with some of it. I don't think the online pass is what it should be, yet. A trial period should be allowed for every system, for example, which might actually push people into buying a game they rent. On the other hand, as I was saying before, when you rent from GameFly, you aren't a customer of the publisher of the game, you're a customer of GameFly. GameFly is making huge amounts off each copy of the game they buy, so it should be up to them to negotiate with the publishers.
Keep in mind that I owned a video rental business for several years, and also rented out videogames. Unlike films, which only rented really really well for a few weeks, and at most a month, a high profile videogame can generate a good deal of profit over an extremely long period of time. Heck, I rented out PS1 and SNES games on a consistant basis. DOZENS of people were enjoying the full benefits while giving nothing back to the industry beyond what I paid for a new copy. In the case of multiplayer, it's even worse; dozens of people were using the publisher's resources without giving anything back. I cannot blame the publishers and developers for not really caring if a person who contributed nothing to them for creating and maintaining a game were to not get as good a product as those who paid new.
Also, you see other differences when you contrast videogames with DVDs. For example, I paid more than retail for a copy of a new DVD that was intended for rental purposes, but I paid retail for new videogames. Back in the VHS days, a new tape would cost me $30 to $80. Now, perhaps that has changed since I was in the business, but if it has, then I haven't heard mention of it. And, as I said before, when you buy a new DVD it's not usually sitting beside used DVDs, and you aren't being pushed to buy used DVDs.
Basically, GameStop has the videogame industry bent over the counter. Used videogame sells are so lucrative for GameStop that they're never going to cave into threats, either. I'm not sure what other options the industry has. This is NOT the same as used televisions or DVDs, as has been pointed out many times before.
The problem is, if you go into GameStop, you can get an IDENTICAL product for $5 less. That absolutely represents a lost sale much of the time. How should publishers and developers address that?
I understand what you're saying, and I even agree with some of it. I don't think the online pass is what it should be, yet. A trial period should be allowed for every system, for example, which might actually push people into buying a game they rent. On the other hand, as I was saying before, when you rent from GameFly, you aren't a customer of the publisher of the game, you're a customer of GameFly. GameFly is making huge amounts off each copy of the game they buy, so it should be up to them to negotiate with the publishers.
Keep in mind that I owned a video rental business for several years, and also rented out videogames. Unlike films, which only rented really really well for a few weeks, and at most a month, a high profile videogame can generate a good deal of profit over an extremely long period of time. Heck, I rented out PS1 and SNES games on a consistant basis. DOZENS of people were enjoying the full benefits while giving nothing back to the industry beyond what I paid for a new copy. In the case of multiplayer, it's even worse; dozens of people were using the publisher's resources without giving anything back. I cannot blame the publishers and developers for not really caring if a person who contributed nothing to them for creating and maintaining a game were to not get as good a product as those who paid new.
Also, you see other differences when you contrast videogames with DVDs. For example, I paid more than retail for a copy of a new DVD that was intended for rental purposes, but I paid retail for new videogames. Back in the VHS days, a new tape would cost me $30 to $80. Now, perhaps that has changed since I was in the business, but if it has, then I haven't heard mention of it. And, as I said before, when you buy a new DVD it's not usually sitting beside used DVDs, and you aren't being pushed to buy used DVDs.
Basically, GameStop has the videogame industry bent over the counter. Used videogame sells are so lucrative for GameStop that they're never going to cave into threats, either. I'm not sure what other options the industry has. This is NOT the same as used televisions or DVDs, as has been pointed out many times before.
The problem is, if you go into GameStop, you can get an IDENTICAL product for $5 less. That absolutely represents a lost sale much of the time. How should publishers and developers address that?
I don't know if its multiplayer or not, but they're probably talking about something along the lines of a Cerberus Network thing.
Eh, either way you go about it though, the game isn't going to sit at $60 for very long any way. It sure as hell didn't take DA2 to drop in price quick and I doubt it will for this. Wait 3 or 4 months, play something in the mean time, and then check out the prices -you'll get a new copy and a code.
Heck, Dead Island and Deus Ex both haven't been $60 since the day they came out on Amazon. Its both have been (last I checked, which was yesterday) sitting at $45 and $40 respectively.
Eh, either way you go about it though, the game isn't going to sit at $60 for very long any way. It sure as hell didn't take DA2 to drop in price quick and I doubt it will for this. Wait 3 or 4 months, play something in the mean time, and then check out the prices -you'll get a new copy and a code.
Heck, Dead Island and Deus Ex both haven't been $60 since the day they came out on Amazon. Its both have been (last I checked, which was yesterday) sitting at $45 and $40 respectively.
@pokota
I just wanted to ask a quick question before continuing. I'm not exactly sure how it works, but don't retailers buy the games from the publisher/developer with their own money, and then make their cut with the sales of the new game?
Wouldn't that mean that the publisher and developer already made their money? Or is there an entirely different process?
I just wanted to ask a quick question before continuing. I'm not exactly sure how it works, but don't retailers buy the games from the publisher/developer with their own money, and then make their cut with the sales of the new game?
Wouldn't that mean that the publisher and developer already made their money? Or is there an entirely different process?
@Ace829
In the short term, you're right. But not in the long term.
Let's say you're making X product, with little direct competition from a used market. A retailer buys 500 units and it sells well, so they buy 400 units the next week, and so on.
Now let's say your retailer is selling new and used side-by-side. The retailer receives 500 units and initial sales are strong. However, it's a single-player game, and a few people have beat it in a week then traded it in, so the retailer doesn't need to order as many copies, and you only ship them 300 units. As more time goes by, the number of trade-ins increases greatly, and your extended sales take a massive hit.
That's a very simplistic example, but the outcome is much the same. The bottom line takes a massive hit in terms of projected sales.
In the short term, you're right. But not in the long term.
Let's say you're making X product, with little direct competition from a used market. A retailer buys 500 units and it sells well, so they buy 400 units the next week, and so on.
Now let's say your retailer is selling new and used side-by-side. The retailer receives 500 units and initial sales are strong. However, it's a single-player game, and a few people have beat it in a week then traded it in, so the retailer doesn't need to order as many copies, and you only ship them 300 units. As more time goes by, the number of trade-ins increases greatly, and your extended sales take a massive hit.
That's a very simplistic example, but the outcome is much the same. The bottom line takes a massive hit in terms of projected sales.
@JimmyX
Why bring Rolf into this again? Do you think he's going to back you up on your hate for a single player game and only play for titty combat?
Why bring Rolf into this again? Do you think he's going to back you up on your hate for a single player game and only play for titty combat?
Join us tommorow where Jim will produce another article about Online Pass cry over it say PSN sucks it takes hours to download in his box. geez the horse is dead stop beating it
@pokota
I understand now. While I do see where the publishers come from, I don't think the bottom line is hurt THAT badly. Like Jim mentioned, sequels to many franchises get better sales partially due to the exposure of the game through secondhand sales for some people. Dead Space is a prime example although they still implemented the pass anyway in the sequel.
Also, I'm not suggesting that publishers just sit back and let those potential new sales get away, but they should implement a system similar to what id Software is doing with Rage. Rewarding new customers with DLC in new copies that are not essential to the game, but are nice to have. EA even had it right the first time with Mass Effect 2 with the Cerberus Network. I think it would be a win-win for both the used gamer and publisher/developer.
It would mean that used gamers enjoy the multiplayer with no hassle, publishers see an increase in new sales due to the DLC gesture, and new gamers get some spiffy looking armor.
I understand now. While I do see where the publishers come from, I don't think the bottom line is hurt THAT badly. Like Jim mentioned, sequels to many franchises get better sales partially due to the exposure of the game through secondhand sales for some people. Dead Space is a prime example although they still implemented the pass anyway in the sequel.
Also, I'm not suggesting that publishers just sit back and let those potential new sales get away, but they should implement a system similar to what id Software is doing with Rage. Rewarding new customers with DLC in new copies that are not essential to the game, but are nice to have. EA even had it right the first time with Mass Effect 2 with the Cerberus Network. I think it would be a win-win for both the used gamer and publisher/developer.
It would mean that used gamers enjoy the multiplayer with no hassle, publishers see an increase in new sales due to the DLC gesture, and new gamers get some spiffy looking armor.
@ pokota. You dishonest scallywag, the service has been paid for! Jim has already argued that point. It isn't the same as a damn subscription, so make that idea clear in your clouded mind.
I only buy games with online passes when they hit $30. Well..really $25. Sorry EA/Bioware. That's if I buy them at all. Try to fuck me and I'll try to fuck you right back.
@Ace829
In the end, we're arguing positions when we don't have access to numbers. I don't know how badly it hurts developers and publishers when GameStop pushes used games. As far as used games driving sequels, though, I don't think that's a great argument. After all, PC games have just as many sequels as console games. Crysis or StarCraft didn't blow up big because of used games.
As far as what Rage is doing, we'll see. There is a lot of flux right now, and I've already heard a lot of people upset that Rage is cutting content in order to shaft used gamers.
@palpablepalpatine
Because Sterling argued it, does not mean he has the definitive answer. If you are accessing resources after your purchase is over, then you're talking about a service. In this case, the publishers are saying that the service is free to new owners, not paid for. There is no "right or wrong" here, only what the market will support. Either perspective is as true as the other.
In the end, we're arguing positions when we don't have access to numbers. I don't know how badly it hurts developers and publishers when GameStop pushes used games. As far as used games driving sequels, though, I don't think that's a great argument. After all, PC games have just as many sequels as console games. Crysis or StarCraft didn't blow up big because of used games.
As far as what Rage is doing, we'll see. There is a lot of flux right now, and I've already heard a lot of people upset that Rage is cutting content in order to shaft used gamers.
@palpablepalpatine
Because Sterling argued it, does not mean he has the definitive answer. If you are accessing resources after your purchase is over, then you're talking about a service. In this case, the publishers are saying that the service is free to new owners, not paid for. There is no "right or wrong" here, only what the market will support. Either perspective is as true as the other.
follow
