The Online Pass

[Jayhmmz]

Where do you stand on the Online Pass? Featured in games such as Battlefield 3 and FIFA 12 on the consoles.

I myself think it's a bad idea, and it's just greedy on the developers and publishers parts. I've written my full-blown opinion here in this article (http://game-craic.com/2012/03/the-online-pass-why-is-it-happening/). They obviously don't want to lose out on profits when their games are traded-in and passed on to other gamers which doesn't benefit them in a financial sense, but come on, they make enough money as it is from direct game sales and various DLC packages.

What do you think?

[norid]

I a truely despise it! I think it is ridiculous considering there are those who rent games, and buy them from places like GameStop. On top of paying for a used game, which could back fire dempnidng on the condition, we also have to pay to go online too?!? I just think it is greedy to take advantage of gamers who say, only play FIFA for online matches.

[Bertrum]

I feel really sorry for kids who have to share an xbox, yet have their own gamertag. If kid1 plays Fifa on his gamertag first christmas day, then he can go online, while kid 2 wont be able to.. It's a massive scam.. There should definitely be a few protests against EA the greedy B******S

[HamadaLFC8]

Yeah its utter bs in my opinion! As Jayhmmz said, of course they don't wanna lose out on profit but that is just tooooo greedy!

[Bertrum]

Another thing that pissed me off about it, I had two gamer tags when Fifa 11 was out, and without realising registered on the wrong gamertag. (I hadn't used that gamertag for 2 or 3 years).. So when I wanted to play it on my proper game tag, I couldn't..

And there was no real easy way at the time to get this problem sorted. So I had two choices, add all my friends on my old gamer tag. Or buy fifa again.. To save myself hassle I re-bought it.

[Trunks]

I never personally had a problem with it, but it is annoying how I can't play any online sports games when I borrow them from someone. Cooperate Greed, it's everywhere.

[Jayhmmz]

I'm glad you all agree. However, I don't think there could be enough protests in the world to stop them from doing this, because they can do it and get away with it, they know people will still buy their games as they're hugely popular.

Regarding the FIFA series, if Pro Evolution Soccer pull their fingers out and make a once-great franchise great once again, then FIFA will be getting the cold shoulder. I have PES 2012 on the PC, and I can say that they're getting close to re-discovering their form.

[Exentenzed]

I'm glad you all agree. However, I don't think there could be enough protests in the world to stop them from doing this, because they can do it and get away with it, they know people will still buy their games as they're hugely popular.

Regarding the FIFA series, if Pro Evolution Soccer pull their fingers out and make a once-great franchise great once again, then FIFA will be getting the cold shoulder. I have PES 2012 on the PC, and I can say that they're getting close to re-discovering their form.

There is another option, this too requires us (The buyers) to come togheter. We can go the legal way and demand our representatives to put forward a suggestion to increase the buyers rights when purchasing digital entertainment, and have it include that such extreme restrictions should be illegal. We could start it by thoroughly laying the groundwork, like what suggestions should be included in this bill, a short summary of why we need this and why it's important we act now before it becomes too common to be stopped.

If we start on this project we can also fire off a email to gabe newell (CEO of Valve) which have for a long time been against these kinds of restrictions, and see if he would be willing to help us create sensible and fair content for this bill. Because then we would have a paying customers point of view, and also a developer/publisher point of view.

Thoughts?

[Jayhmmz]

There is another option, this too requires us (The buyers) to come togheter. We can go the legal way and demand our representatives to put forward a suggestion to increase the buyers rights when purchasing digital entertainment, and have it include that such extreme restrictions should be illegal. We could start it by thoroughly laying the groundwork, like what suggestions should be included in this bill, a short summary of why we need this and why it's important we act now before it becomes too common to be stopped.

If we start on this project we can also fire off a email to gabe newell (CEO of Valve) which have for a long time been against these kinds of restrictions, and see if he would be willing to help us create sensible and fair content for this bill. Because then we would have a paying customers point of view, and also a developer/publisher point of view.

Thoughts?

This is a good plan, but I myself would not have any spare time to get involved in such a movement.

[Trunks]

There is another option, this too requires us (The buyers) to come togheter. We can go the legal way and demand our representatives to put forward a suggestion to increase the buyers rights when purchasing digital entertainment, and have it include that such extreme restrictions should be illegal. We could start it by thoroughly laying the groundwork, like what suggestions should be included in this bill, a short summary of why we need this and why it's important we act now before it becomes too common to be stopped.

If we start on this project we can also fire off a email to gabe newell (CEO of Valve) which have for a long time been against these kinds of restrictions, and see if he would be willing to help us create sensible and fair content for this bill. Because then we would have a paying customers point of view, and also a developer/publisher point of view.

Thoughts?

Everyone trys that stuff, never works. I bet people already did something to that extent about it.

[egg-whites333]

Wait i believe you jay said activision were money whores because they give you an option to buy more maps for 12 bucks that still let you play online without it or the optional price of elite premium to get the map packs free but now EA is forcing you to pay for online... hmmm tables have switched who are the money whores now. sorry for this i just thought because everyone rips on cod for steeling money. i disagree with the online pass as well

[Jayhmmz]

Wait i believe you jay said activision were money whores because they give you an option to buy more maps for 12 bucks that still let you play online without it or the optional price of elite premium to get the map packs free but now EA is forcing you to pay for online... hmmm tables have switched who are the money whores now. sorry for this i just thought because everyone rips on cod for steeling money. i disagree with the online pass as well

If Activision demanded players to have an online pass to play the game then a lot of people wouldn't even bother buying it, because it's a boring franchise that hasn't been good for a long time. They can't afford to have an online pass, so because it's a less-than-impressive game they've obviously realised that and opted out.

Activision/ Infinity ward & Treyarch are charging a couple of pounds more for one single map pack (out of about three per annual release) than the total cost of the EA online pass for consoles, so my statement still stands. If I was given the choice then I would still rather pay for an online pass to play BF3, than play Call of Duty with no online pass required. Regardless, Activision try to squeeze any coins they can from their fans.

Following on from what I've just stated, EA DICE make changes to their game for the better, instead of sticking with the same old formula that's grown boring and grey over the past few years. Activision and their developers show no signs of innovation or creativity, and they have made no effort to change the graphics engine or anything; I'm 80% sure that they're using the same one as they used on Call of Duty 2. Activision haven't published a ground-breaking Call of Duty experience since Call of Duty 4, back in 2007, and that's both fact and opinion. I used to love Call of Duty, and I'd always have the games on pre-order, but I refuse to get sucked into what is now a brand, taking advantage of fans purchasing the game just for its title.

Activision will have none of my money until they publish a Call of Duty game that mirrors the greatness that is Call of Duty 4.

[egg-whites333]

thats not tue i know man people tht would pay for an online pass for cod, i would for one but i dont need to thats what i like everything you pay for except the game itself i free or optinal. i know for a fact tht activision would do fine with n online pass but are better than that.

[Trunks]

If Activision demanded players to have an online pass to play the game then a lot of people wouldn't even bother buying it, because it's a boring franchise that hasn't been good for a long time. They can't afford to have an online pass, so because it's a less-than-impressive game they've obviously realised that and opted out.

Activision/ Infinity ward & Treyarch are charging a couple of pounds more for one single map pack (out of about three per annual release) than the total cost of the EA online pass for consoles, so my statement still stands. If I was given the choice then I would still rather pay for an online pass to play BF3, than play Call of Duty with no online pass required. Regardless, Activision try to squeeze any coins they can from their fans.

Following on from what I've just stated, EA DICE make changes to their game for the better, instead of sticking with the same old formula that's grown boring and grey over the past few years. Activision and their developers show no signs of innovation or creativity, and they have made no effort to change the graphics engine or anything; I'm 80% sure that they're using the same one as they used on Call of Duty 2. Activision haven't published a ground-breaking Call of Duty experience since Call of Duty 4, back in 2007, and that's both fact and opinion. I used to love Call of Duty, and I'd always have the games on pre-order, but I refuse to get sucked into what is now a brand, taking advantage of fans purchasing the game just for its title.

Activision will have none of my money until they publish a Call of Duty game that mirrors the greatness that is Call of Duty 4.

The fact is they aren't though, you can what if about it all day, won't do you any good.

Also if MW3 is so dry and grey why do people keep buying them. Don't even say cause everyone is stupid, they wouldn't buy them if it was boring, it obviously attends to thousands, well even millions of people still buy it. Everyone that says MW3 should have destructible environment and vehicles, wouldn't that just make it more like BF3? Why have to similar games out on the market when you can have two different ones? Everyone wants more Call of Duty, you really can't do much too it, it's an FPS game. I think they changed it a lot from Call of Duty 4.

People complain about the game engine too, game engines doesn't matter, it's how they are built that makes the difference. The Infinity Ward engine has been around since Call of Duty 2. Now you tell me that the jump from Call of Duty 2 to Call of Duty 4 isn't spectacular and mind blowing. Well it's the same engine, engines don't make that big of a difference, things can be upgraded changed and manipulated and still be the same engine. Another thing, why would they make a whole new engine which takes years to make, then have a new console come out and have to revamp it. It'd be smarter for them to wait for the new console to come out, find out what it can handle how everything works then make a new engine. To me that is the logical way to do things since there isn't even anything wrong with the current one. Just remember how old the engine is doesn't determine how bad the graphics are. The Frostbite 2 is just an upgraded version of the original Frostbite for Battlefield bad company. Same with the MW3 engine, it's an upgraded version of the IW engine. They designed the engine to be upgradable and adaptable, that's why they haven't needed to make a new engine. They use the same design, but add more detail to everything. That's why you can have huge jumps of graphics from CoD2 to CoD4 using the same engine. I'm sure the engines limits are being hit currently, but the games start still turning out looking slightly better, a lot cleaner, the colors are more vibrant.

It's frustrating when people complain about how "Call of Duty is the same, nothings changed, they even use the same engine" when they don't have a clue what they're talking about. 99% of them don't know how game engines even work. Another annoying thing is when people say "They need to add something new to call of duty" oh you mean like the new perks, kill streak package, kill streaks in general, guns, attachments, gun levels, CoD Elite, and game types? Yeah those lazy developers, add something new please. When actually what else can be added? People say vehicles and destructible walls, no thanks I want Call of Duty not BF3. I wouldn't mind Destructible environment, but not vehicles, I hated it in WaW and CoD UO.

A CoD game will never be as good as CoD4. I personally think that the original Call of Duty 1 is the best. I have over 2,000 hours on xifre, but more than that because I wasn't always logged on. But that's 83 days of playing Call of Duty 1. It's still populated to this day, their was even still tournaments and competition for it around 2010. That's 7 years of competitive game play for Call of Duty 1. The rest only had 1 or 2 years, that's obviously because a new Cod comes out every year now, but CoD 1 survived though the CoD 4 era. I haven't found any game better than CoD 1. I probably never will, it's a classical and will always be my favorite game. If you were really into MW1 then you'll never find a game as good as it, just doesn't happen.

[Exentenzed]

Sooooo? Back to topic? Im tired to hear about CoD vs BF disucssions, probably even more so than Xbox vs PS. And they are both completely pointless.

[thedeparted]

Gaming industry trying to get more revenue streams. This is just another form. It's bs greed, nothing more.

[egg-whites333]

i was jut making a point then would go back to topic but still i think it i a complete waste of money to py for online when you paid 60-80$ for the game greedy is what it is.

[Trunks]

You don't have to pay for online, it's just when you buy the game you get a code for online to work. Once you use the code for your PSN or Xbox live account you can't use it again for another account. So basically it stops you from buying a used game, because most likely you wont be able to play online because the code was probably already used.

I wonder if gamestop puts new codes in when people resell them. Anyone know? If so, it really isn't that bad IMO.

[Jayhmmz]

The fact is they aren't though, you can what if about it all day, won't do you any good.

Also if MW3 is so dry and grey why do people keep buying them. Don't even say cause everyone is stupid, they wouldn't buy them if it was boring, it obviously attends to thousands, well even millions of people still buy it. Everyone that says MW3 should have destructible environment and vehicles, wouldn't that just make it more like BF3? Why have to similar games out on the market when you can have two different ones? Everyone wants more Call of Duty, you really can't do much too it, it's an FPS game. I think they changed it a lot from Call of Duty 4.

People complain about the game engine too, game engines doesn't matter, it's how they are built that makes the difference. The Infinity Ward engine has been around since Call of Duty 2. Now you tell me that the jump from Call of Duty 2 to Call of Duty 4 isn't spectacular and mind blowing. Well it's the same engine, engines don't make that big of a difference, things can be upgraded changed and manipulated and still be the same engine. Another thing, why would they make a whole new engine which takes years to make, then have a new console come out and have to revamp it. It'd be smarter for them to wait for the new console to come out, find out what it can handle how everything works then make a new engine. To me that is the logical way to do things since there isn't even anything wrong with the current one. Just remember how old the engine is doesn't determine how bad the graphics are. The Frostbite 2 is just an upgraded version of the original Frostbite for Battlefield bad company. Same with the MW3 engine, it's an upgraded version of the IW engine. They designed the engine to be upgradable and adaptable, that's why they haven't needed to make a new engine. They use the same design, but add more detail to everything. That's why you can have huge jumps of graphics from CoD2 to CoD4 using the same engine. I'm sure the engines limits are being hit currently, but the games start still turning out looking slightly better, a lot cleaner, the colors are more vibrant.

It's frustrating when people complain about how "Call of Duty is the same, nothings changed, they even use the same engine" when they don't have a clue what they're talking about. 99% of them don't know how game engines even work. Another annoying thing is when people say "They need to add something new to call of duty" oh you mean like the new perks, kill streak package, kill streaks in general, guns, attachments, gun levels, CoD Elite, and game types? Yeah those lazy developers, add something new please. When actually what else can be added? People say vehicles and destructible walls, no thanks I want Call of Duty not BF3. I wouldn't mind Destructible environment, but not vehicles, I hated it in WaW and CoD UO.

A CoD game will never be as good as CoD4. I personally think that the original Call of Duty 1 is the best. I have over 2,000 hours on xifre, but more than that because I wasn't always logged on. But that's 83 days of playing Call of Duty 1. It's still populated to this day, their was even still tournaments and competition for it around 2010. That's 7 years of competitive game play for Call of Duty 1. The rest only had 1 or 2 years, that's obviously because a new Cod comes out every year now, but CoD 1 survived though the CoD 4 era. I haven't found any game better than CoD 1. I probably never will, it's a classical and will always be my favorite game. If you were really into MW1 then you'll never find a game as good as it, just doesn't happen.

But the game is pretty much the same every year now, none of the small differences are stand-out. Sure, new uniforms, new player models and new maps, but in terms of the size of the game that's nothing. Also, just to shoot you down, I wasn't going to say people buy CoD because they're stupid. People buy CoD because they want easy access, straight-into-the-action gameplay, which I personally don't like when it's a copy and pasted game every year, but I'm not disputing that. I'm entitled to my opinion, and I think I'll have it.

To extent my opinion, perks and killstreak awards have ruined the online experience, it's just overkill. Black Ops was the worst for it. I'm glad to see that they've toned it down in MW3, but it still doesn't tickle my interests when I personally don't think it's changed enough to warrant my time and money. I want a fresh experience, same old formula, but with a nice new edge to it, not the same game with a different title.

In terms of the innovation and creativity I was speaking of, there is none present these days. They've managed to subtly change the online experience for the worse, in my opinion, and it just doesn't feel the same with all this aforementioned over-kill perks and killstreak bollocks flying about to make the crap players good, and the good players annoying. In all honesty, I think that they feel that there isn't a lot of pressure on them because they know that the Call of Duty name is a nailed on title in terms of it's place in the gaming world, and they know that people will buy their products, no matter the result. That is why they can just churn a new title out every year to then make an arse-load of money for their "efforts" because people will buy the game anyway.

I'll keep voicing my opinion when the situation arises. You're right that it doesn't do me any good, but it doesn't do me any bad either, just like everybody else's opinions on anything in the same bracket of debate.

I'm going to agree to disagree to stop this from spiralling out of control so we can get back on topic.

[CraeSC111]

I don't see where you got anything about the game engine from what Jay said but I agree that no one really knows what they are talking about when they complain about the engines (always some exceptions that I won't explain).

Anyway I'm sure that people will protest and sells will go down then game companies will stop. Valve had a good sized article on revenue from free games.

[egg-whites333]

if you buy it used you can buy a code from ea

[Jayhmmz]

if you buy it used you can buy a code from ea

As I've said in the article, I wish this wasn't the case. I only wanted to play BF3 for a little bit after borrowing it from my Brother, but because of the stupid online pass I couldn't. What a joke. I'm in the same house and I can't even play the same game as him because EA want more money than they're getting from the initial sales of their games, which by the way is more than enough for them to finance their next game and then some.

[egg-whites333]

ya i think that it would be little better if they make it for like 2-3 people so if you did have siblings something could be done

[Synge]

The ultimate online pass system:

Next PlayStation to lock out used games - Report - GameSpot.com (http://www.gamespot.com/news/next-playstation-to-lock-out-used-games-report-6368582)

I wonder if it's true.. This is exactly the direction this **** shouldn't be going.

[egg-whites333]

if its tue im switching to microoft half of my games are used for ps3 and ps4 would be no diffrent. sony if they do that i hope anon hacks them again

[BobTD]

Well I think this is going to bge the rise of indie gaming. Im no longer buying EA games, at all because of the origin service terms.

One thing I think this will change is the state of affairs in China. Currently with no copyright they cant get anyone in china to pay for anything. I can see why they are planing something like this, and understand why its necessary to some extent.

I voted to quick and now regret my choice. I think that with some consideration towards the rights of the customer this could bring a positive change. I just dont see why they expect the player to bear the full burden of the risk. Currently there are to many cases where the fans arent taken into consideration.

And this is not just with giant corporations now, STEAMS service has some pretty harsh policies. My buddy was inthe army and his mom used her card to send him something with paypal using her card. Then steam automatically charged the last card on the paypal account when he didnt know it was registered. She asked for her money back and he lost his steam account. They just closed his $600+ account because they have a no refund policy.

And when you buy something, what are you really getting? Why dont we have ownership of what we buy and why isnt that ownership protected? These terms of service that can change without notice, and strip you of your rights have to stop.