Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Do you mean 
Reply
Gaming Beast
Registered: 12/26/2012
Offline
1916 posts
 

Re: EA Getting Rid of Online Passes

May 16, 2013

UnrealButcher wrote:

xClayMeow wrote:

I never understood all the hate for online passes, sorry. When you buy a game new, you get the online pass for free - you don't pay extra. Devs/pubs make no money on used game sales, so why shouldn't they make a little back with online passes for those that choose not to go through them for their copy of the game? It makes perfect business sense. I don't get why people feel entitled to a full gameplay experience if they're buying a used game for cheap.


So did you read my OP? While I understand companies wanting to make some money back on used games that are sold. This is an added cost to families that have more than one console and profile. Here's the quote for you, incase you missed it the first time.  

 


UnrealButcher wrote:

 

Glad to hear EA did away with it. As a big fan of Battlefield this generation, I didn't buy BF3, because my sons would not have been able to use my copy to play on their paid subscriptions under my roof without having to buy a pass each.

Yeah, I know I could have let them play on my account, but I don't go for that. I paid for 3 360's, 9 years of Live, games for myself and them including some games (Halo Reach/4, GoW2/3, Splinter Cell Conviction, LP2) buying multiple copies to LAN, or just have our own screen. Then they started doing this crap. It was hard to resist BF3. Glad they are dropping this.


Do realize that this is from someone that is coming from a console where I was already paying for XBL for 4 profiles, so for them to add this fee to a game that I already buy new was kind of a slap in the face. Gaming is already expensive, especially if you have a family of gamers. This isn't me sharing with friends that live in the neighborhood. And letting my kids play on my profile isn't an option, when I'm using it to play something else.

 

BTW, I don't think this would bother me so much if I wasn't already paying for a service (XBL) to play online in the first place. But still feel like doing so because of people that buy used is punishing families that buy new.



Why do you feel entitled to be able to play your games on multiple accounts with just one copy? Game-sharing is not a new issue, but due to online play and accounts, pubs/devs can actually do something about that now. When you buy a game, it clearly states how many devices/accounts your license is applicable for (remember, we never truly buy the games, we pay for the right to play them). With BF3, for example, you want to pay $50 and then connect with three accounts, then why shouldn't you have to pay extra to do so? It's still cheaper than buying three full copies of the game, which is how it really should be. So okay, you have to pay $70 compared to someone who pays just $50, but that's a hell of a lot cheaper than $150, right?

Message 21 of 47 (230 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Fender Bender
Registered: 05/03/2013
Online
3070 posts
 

Re: EA Getting Rid of Online Passes

May 16, 2013

xClayMeow wrote:

kingbro1 wrote:

xClayMeow wrote:

I never understood all the hate for online passes, sorry. When you buy a game new, you get the online pass for free - you don't pay extra. Devs/pubs make no money on used game sales, so why shouldn't they make a little back with online passes for those that choose not to go through them for their copy of the game? It makes perfect business sense. I don't get why people feel entitled to a full gameplay experience if they're buying a used game for cheap.


But what if you wanted to sell a game? Thanks to the online pass, you wouldn't get as much money back. People sell games they don't want anymore to make buying new copies less of a hassle. Basically, used games can be good for the industry. Yes, if someone buys a used copy, the publishers and developers don't get money, but what if a game is expected to sell 2 million copies, but only 5 hundred thousand are sold? You want to point your finger at used game buyers when there can only be a maximum of 5 hundred thousand used copies for sale? Here's some math: 500,000 + 500,000 = 1,000,000. Are online passes going to help that game succeed? No. In fact, they make me want to stay away from it. The only game with an online pass I ever bought was Uncharted 3, and that's not changing, unless I get a game when it's under $30.


So then wait to buy games when they're on sale so the dev/pub still gets money. Used games are not good for the industry, sorry. Never have been, never will be. The only industry that used games help is the retail industry, namely GameStop. That's pure profit for them. I personally would rather see my money go to the pubs/devs in the hope it supports future development rather than to GS's CEO.


Prove it, then. Did used games cause the 1983 crash? No. Did they cause Atari or Sega to leave the console business? No. Did they cause Atari or THQ to go bankrupt? No. All of the bad things that have happened to the industry are caused by bad business decisions. Point your finger elsewhere. If you put your money into a game and it doesn't sell, think about what YOU did wrong. Bad advertising (or none at all)? Not enough gamers are interested?

Message 22 of 47 (224 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 08/30/2012
Offline
1508 posts
 

Re: EA Getting Rid of Online Passes

[ Edited ]
May 16, 2013

xClayMeow wrote:

Why do you feel entitled to be able to play your games on multiple accounts with just one copy? Game-sharing is not a new issue, but due to online play and accounts, pubs/devs can actually do something about that now. When you buy a game, it clearly states how many devices/accounts your license is applicable for (remember, we never truly buy the games, we pay for the right to play them). With BF3, for example, you want to pay $50 and then connect with three accounts, then why shouldn't you have to pay extra to do so? It's still cheaper than buying three full copies of the game, which is how it really should be. So okay, you have to pay $70 compared to someone who pays just $50, but that's a hell of a lot cheaper than $150, right?


 

So now I'm being blamed for all the people that buy used?

 

It used to be that games promoted playing together. You know local multiplayer. You could do that on various profiles. Now you spend some extra money for your internet service and suddenly they say it's to make money back from money lost to used games or rentals?

 

You spin it however you like. If I really wanted to I could make a community profile to play each game I've bought over the years to get around it. That easy. I just don't see why my son can't play a game I bought for myself when I'm not using it, and you know what. He can play every game I have in it's single player campaign and even in local coop. It's when he want to go online that they draw this line. Hmm... why not just lock out additional profiles altogether? Obviously EA has taken a different stance on this as it didn't work out they way they wanted.

 

And are you talking about PC, because I don't see anything on Halo or Gears of War that says anything about being limited to how many profiles I use? Then again, I'm old and maybe I can't read that small print. TIA.

 

Do remember I'm talking based on my XBL experiences over the last 9 years.

 

Oh and I really love it when people throw around the "entitled" card. lol.

 

Guess they'd rather I pay for online passes for one game to play in my house then the money I spend on "New" games for the family. You know, supporting various developers. I'm sure they'll make more money off these guys that buy used and have to pay the $10 to play online. You know the ones that probably have no problem sharing a profile. 

 

I suppose if I were only paying for games for myself it would be easy to preach to those that also support their kids gaming. I'm all for helping with keeping gaming going.

 

However, I don't pirate (I had a neighbor that had a CD case full of burned games he used on a modded XBox, **bleep** me off to see that) or rent, and rarely buy used. I buy over 100 "New" games each console life cycle. Bought 3 360's, some 8+ controllers for it, a kinect, Rock Band with all the controllers (probably only supposed to use one profile on that one), XBL for one profile for 9 years and 4 accounts (under my roof) for last 3 years. So have spent probably $30,000+ on gaming since PS1. So I'd hardly say my sons playing my copy under my roof is the problem.

 

Guess if I'd just buy used I could save alot of money. Guess I could just buy less games between the 3 of us so we could just concentrate on 1 game. You know, now that you mention it, I do have a rather large back log of games I and my boys haven't finished over the years. Guess we could just stop buying games altogether and work on those for the next 10 years. That would probably help out with keeping gaming afloat. roflmaocopter

 

Have a good night. :smileylol: It's been fun. Thanx. :heart:

Message 23 of 47 (213 Views)
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 02/05/2013
Offline
1011 posts
 

Re: EA Getting Rid of Online Passes

May 16, 2013
So you're willing to shell out a minimum of $240/year to Microsoft for XBL, yet a one time fee of $30 for a few online passes is to much. I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic in this. If the money is so tight ditch the XBOX and join the light side of the force over here at Playstation. It'll save at least $200/year.
My PSN
Message 24 of 47 (202 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 08/30/2012
Offline
1508 posts
 

Re: EA Getting Rid of Online Passes

[ Edited ]
May 16, 2013

the_ed_85 wrote:
So you're willing to shell out a minimum of $240/year to Microsoft for XBL, yet a one time fee of $30 for a few online passes is to much. I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic in this. If the money is so tight ditch the XBOX and join the light side of the force over here at Playstation. It'll save at least $200/year.

You know, I did ditch XBL just this year.

 

But as I've said, I buy alot of games between me and my boys (sons, not friends), and if I buy 3 or 4 online games a year and I have to pay the extra to play them online, then that adds up fast.

 

BTW, it was $100 for the family plan. So using this logic I'm really not saving much. Am I?

 

What I don't understand is that EA has decided to not do this, but everyone (alright some) here is arguing to have it. I don't understand why this is even being argued. Are you guys all Sony fanboys trying to justify paying $10 to play online? I thought it was only XBots that argued for paying to play online. **bleep**? lmao. Incredible. smh lmao. Unbelievable.

 

Alright, I have to get up with the kids in the morning. You all have a good night. The pleasure has been all mine. Trollololollo..... zing.:heart: :smileyvery-happy: :smileywink:

Message 25 of 47 (200 Views)
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 07/08/2012
Offline
1283 posts
 

Re: EA Getting Rid of Online Passes

May 16, 2013
Online passes are a dollar or two on cheapassgamer. Gotta learn how to budget.
Message 26 of 47 (196 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 05/12/2010
Offline
6424 posts
 

Re: EA Getting Rid of Online Passes

May 16, 2013
Good. Online Pass do more harm than good. Although, I never paid for a single one. I'm not a big used game person, I love to buy my games new and I also have Gamefly.

But if I rent a Game that requires an Online Pass, I don't buy one. If I like the game either way, I'll buy the game new to support the devs.
Check out my PlayStation dedicated blog, PlayStation Persuasion!

http://playstationpersuasion.tumblr.com/

PSN: ScreamAimFire999 [PS4, PS3, PS Vita Owner]
Twitter: @PSPersuasion

Message 27 of 47 (188 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 01/09/2011
Offline
1868 posts
 

Re: EA Getting Rid of Online Passes

May 16, 2013

I'm glad they are doing this, Its a step in the right direction for the company.  Now what they need to do is stop focusing so heavily on DLC content within the game. They also need to take their time when releasing titles as well and not create rushed titles.  I would also love to see some support for new IPs

PSN: Deadly_Rabbit123
XBL: BruteForce94

Proud Owner of Xbox One and PS4
Message 28 of 47 (180 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 12/22/2008
Offline
926 posts
 

Re: EA Getting Rid of Online Passes

[ Edited ]
May 16, 2013

mcbuttz78 wrote:

bookepride wrote:

 

They aren't losing that much, since EA just barely opened up a new studio in L.A. and hiring almost the same amount of people they fired.

 

 



Excuse my french they're  a bunch  of "silly arse clowns"  ...  you dont go  hiring folks   when your  laying folks off it  counter productive.. Not only that is disrespectful and humulating those guys.

 

 It like saying we cant pay you guys any more  but we can pay these new  guys over here. What kinda of crap is that??.. Ea is  ok  and alot nice people work over there but..  I cant  stand the policy they do and hope they do  go under or  reform the  whole dang place called ea.

 

I see alot  of video game companies are making board games  now and not video games anymore..  I think thes compnaies need to learn never  sell 100%  of your company  never.. Alwys  have a way to  keep your company name. They layed 1200 people  and more layoff are coming.  In my opinion is it  disrespectful to open ananother  studio  when closing them,, if your going to  do that atleast do it quietly..


This is not something new to the business industry, or unique to the videogame industry either.  At my previous job, I was hired there after a MASSIVE round of layoffs when more than 3,000 jobs were cut by the company.  It was an awkard feeling moving into my new office while other people were packing up theirs since they were being kicked out the door.  I was at the company for 6 years before the same thing happened to me.  They decided to "change" how they were organized and kicked me out on my butt while hiring new people to run these "new" roles.  (Something that they didn't even bother interviewing ANY of their existing employees for to see if they would be able to do the job).

 

Companies do this all the time.  If they have 3,000 employees making $90,000 a year, but they only feel that they need "1,500" employees, just layin off the 1,500 employees will save them $135,000,000 each year on salary alone.  However, if they can "get younger" and hire in people with a bit less work experience and then offer them only $60,000 a year, they'll go and layoff all 3,000 employees and bring in 1,500 new ones at the lower salary.  This will save them additional $90,000,000 so it's what they go ahead and do. 

 

It's ethically and morally disgusting, but that's how big businesses work.

Message 29 of 47 (160 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 08/30/2012
Offline
1508 posts
 

Re: EA Getting Rid of Online Passes

May 16, 2013

Jdurg wrote:

This is not something new to the business industry, or unique to the videogame industry either.  At my previous job, I was hired there after a MASSIVE round of layoffs when more than 3,000 jobs were cut by the company.  It was an awkard feeling moving into my new office while other people were packing up theirs since they were being kicked out the door.  I was at the company for 6 years before the same thing happened to me.  They decided to "change" how they were organized and kicked me out on my butt while hiring new people to run these "new" roles.  (Something that they didn't even bother interviewing ANY of their existing employees for to see if they would be able to do the job).

 

Companies do this all the time.  If they have 3,000 employees making $90,000 a year, but they only feel that they need "1,500" employees, just layin off the 1,500 employees will save them $135,000,000 each year on salary alone.  However, if they can "get younger" and hire in people with a bit less work experience and then offer them only $60,000 a year, they'll go and layoff all 3,000 employees and bring in 1,500 new ones at the lower salary.  This will save them additional $90,000,000 so it's what they go ahead and do. 

 

It's ethically and morally disgusting, but that's how big businesses work.


 Exactly.

 

Hmm, we need to save some money. Should we cut our salary or get rid of our private jet and 2 months vacation?

 

Hmm. I know, let's get rid of our senior employees and hire younger people that will do the same job for less.

 

Yeah, yeah. Let's do that. I sure wouldn't feel comfortable being the new guy coming in after everyone got fired.

 

Kind of like the guy that thinks, "Ha ha, she cheated on you with me, because I'm so hot." Then a couple years later he finds out she cheated on him. lol.

 

My Mom worked in management for the Federal Reserve for 20 years, being flown to other cities for meetings and what not. One day they made a new position and put her in it. They in less than a year decided they didn't need that position and said she could take a non management position for less or take a package and leave.

 

Don't worry she got hired without problem in another management position elsewhere where her skills were needed. Fortunately she didn't fall victim to the "You're overqualified" line they like to use to not pay what you may be worth.

Message 30 of 47 (152 Views)
Reply
0 Likes