With the news that Battlefield 3 will be using EA's pass system in some fashion, has the potential battle between Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 just been decided?
I don't see how the pass will help BF3 sell better or worst. No one mentioned COD elite and how it will hurt MW3 sales (mentioned in this article). Even though COD Elite is an optional service. Also if you buy the game new, it won't hurt the gamer playing the game online. People still buy Sports game year after year and those have online passes. The most recent one is NCAA Football 2012. SO to say that EA handed over a victory that neither Company has, is a little absurd. We sale see which game is worth it come to the respective release dates. I'm sure Dice will have something where you can play the MP for like 48 hours to a week if you don't have the online pass. Most EA games are like that. The most recent one I've played was NFS:HP where you could play the MP for 48 hours.
The difference, as you stated, is 1) Call of Duty Elite is completely optional to EVERYONE who buys the game. BF 3 pass is needed if you borrow, rent or buy used. Which limits, the amount of people who can play online. 2) Most of those sports games really don't have any competition, and its only been a year since the passes have been in place, maybe sales will start to sag. 3) Your final point is valid. Perhaps, they will have a method to give people a sampling of the game, before they have to pay, but it still does hurt when you are the underdog. And you handicap yourself like this.
EA has dedicated servers which cost money. Activision does NOT thus ea has a right to online passes. COD games are always and will always be p2p unless Acti gets their heads straightened out ;)
@ddkshah- I think Acti has there heads in the right place. Why spend money on dedicated servers when the majority of the COD community doesn't care about dedicated servers? COD games have been selling more and more each year since COD4..WITHOUT dedicated servers. Consider this analogy, ur running a hotdog business and when you give the hotdog to the customer, u give it to them in a napkin...not a paper plate. If you continuously sell more hot dogs every year for 3 years..then why add the extra expense of paper plates when your customers obviously don't care? Business 101: If the majority of customers don't complain about it, don't waste time/money fixing it.
@ddkshah The funny thing is that P2P on CoD has worked alot better then EA's servers have for years. EA has some of the worst servers around. Even their own website doesn't work properly alot of the time. I'm willing to bet that the complaints about EA's servers will be the same as they always have, with rubber banding happening frequently, lag and people getting booted out of games. It happened with BC 1+2, and it will happen again.
p2p works better really? I always have an issue with good days/bad days on cod. In bad company 2 i never had that problem. Logic the majority of the people don't know what dedicated servers are. All they know about is lag/no lag. COD has the BIGGEST lag complaints of any game plus host issues advantage etc... Your analogy also makes no sense we are talking about dedicated server/no lag vs p2p/lag player advantage. A damn napkin/plate isn't going to change a thing with customers.
@BattleAxe So are you saying that Black Ops matches never randomly quit or not have frequent host migration that fail and you get booted from the match? I surely hope not, because that's what happens, and you at least don't see that on EA's servers. The only good thing about not having dedicated servers is that you can run the online forever as long as Microsoft keep up the Xbox LIVE matchmaking servers, whereas with dedicated servers they are prone to being taken offline as we've seen before with many of EA's older titles. I doubt we'll see it soon for Battlefield 3 though because it should be popular for years to come.
@ ddkshah and Live in a box, Seriously you guys, did you not ever play Bad Company 1 or 2? Go check out the EA Battlefield forums. I'm not talking about CoD necessarily being a better game, but the Bad Company series did have alot of server issues. I played both games on the PS3, and I have also put about 50 hours into BC2 on PC, and while the PC version isn't nearly as bad, these issues still appear. I jus thate it how people start praising EA and giving them credit where it isn't due when the words "dedicated servers" get brought up. Its not like EA has changed just because Battlefield 3 is coming out.
So if I buy 5 used games on my PS3 a year that have online pass, That's $50 a year for online. Might as well have Xbox live.
"EA has dedicated servers which cost money. Activision does NOT thus ea has a right to online passes." I'm a PC gamer. That excuse doesn't fly considering the past decade of precedents....
Did EA Hand Modern Warfare 3 The Victory? That depends. Did a stupid person desperate for hits on his site write an idiotic article with a blatantly sensationalist headline to draw attention to himself?
@KingExlixir ....or if you buy 5 used xbox games with online pass youd have to pay $50 for the passes plus $60 for Live. o.0
The idea of a victory is pure idiocy in the first place. That said, the "top dog" will be determined by sales rather than the number of persons playing online. And shamefully, no one will seriously look at quality. By sales it means new games and all new BF3 titles carry the online pass...free. The same cannot be said for MW3 and COD Elite. Of course so many in the gaming public have shown themselves to be less than intelligent when it comes to long term costs. They focus upon the "cheap fix now" and fail to calculate how costs will rise in the future. Stop drinking the kool-aid. If you want to be a top MW3 player it is going to require COD Elite. As of the moment Activision are making it sound optional. It is laughable anyone actually beleives this. Wakeup! Once the game is released and players have bought into it Bobby's boys will inevitably up the ante in order to pressure players to sign up for Elite and fork over the money...every month.
I don't understand why people even argue this. Who cares if EA has dedicated servers or not. The only thing the customer is going to look at is; 1. which games is selling better/appeal 2. personal costs they don't care for company costs at all. They're going to look and see "oh $10 more so I can play online? no thanks" If they are buying used that is.
I don't see the problem, 2nd hand games that are sold as 'offline' will just become cheaper, the money you save will instead be paid to the creators of the game in the form of an online pass who actually deserve the money. My biggest concern is that devs will shy away from creating single player experiences if they know they can reduce the hit of 2nd hand losses by making a good multiplayer game and slapping an online pass system on it.
I'm still only buying Battlefield 3 and will NOT buy MW3. As for the pass, I don't think that anyone who wanted to buy BF3 so far will say "Ahh fuck it I will refuse to buy it now". EVERYONE who buys BF3 will get an online pass. The only people who are butthurt here are the people who pirate on PC and the people who rent because they will HAVE to buy an online pass even if they just rent the game or pirate it. So I don't see the problem.
Anyone that thought BF3 had a chance from the start needs to stop kidding themselves. BF3 never had a chance to beat/outsell MW3. Any "Gamer" who understands the video game industry knows this. Some people just have a hard time admitting it so they create all this BF3 propaganda. MW3 will sell close to 20 million units when you add PS3 and 360 combined. BF3 would be considered a wild success if it sells have that.
if you buy a game preowned shorty after release and have to buy an online pass, well thats a waste of money. buy the full game (even after a price drop)cause its bout the same amount of money after buying the pass. preowned games aint that much cheaper then buying a new copy at my gamestop.
The only game i seen that ran well with 32 players on consoles p2p was perfect dark zero. I hosted 32 player matches with no lag on that game. The one thing i can say for that game it had great net code.
Pretty awful idea this whole EA pass , they greedy companies are taking the soul out of gaming, with with PSN Crap Pass that will descrease the sales of Sony exclusives to piss poor , to content that is taken out of games and sold as DLC, to content which should be unlockables like olden days are also sold as DLC, and pre order incentives for what a costume? BF3 will be a amazing game, with supreb graphics, and MW3 will also have a addictive and fast paced MP that everyone will play with a nice cinematic campaign. One thing for sure MW3 will eat BF3 for breakfast terms of sales..
lol You saying "PSN Crap Pass" to play sony owned games online but why aren't you bashing xbox gold, Needed to play all games online.
THQ pass and Ubisoft pass.... Also Is it fair that some one who payed £20 for a game sencond hand should get the same experience as me when I bought it new for £45?
So have you ever heard of pc gaming? Because we have had that system pretty much the whole time. I'm going to guess that more people are going to start doing something similar for most console games so that they can make more money.
It's pretty hysterical that this is even news. Bad Company 2 had the VIP code. This should have been expected. Oh and PS: buy your games new or don't cry about paying for an online pass. Pretty freaking simple concept. If you can't afford it new or have to rent it, then boo hoo. Buy it six months down the road or when it inevitably goes on sale. It's so retardedly easy and it will easily add years to most of your lives. No need for heart attacks. It's going to be OK. I am getting so sick of all you so called "journalists" writing this crap thinking that you are somehow coming up with an idea that is relevant, new or even worth anyone's time. I didn't bother reading the article because it is surely garbage. The concept alone makes it garbage. Cut the crap.
Nothing wrong with have a 2nd hand market. I hope tv companies, car compabies etc. don't start limiting their products to those who buy them new... "B-b-b-ut that's different, you should support the developers" - A game will always be supported if it's any good, and tailored to what people want. I'm pretty sure BF3's sales would be pretty high without this pass system. People need to take the testicles of the corporations out of their mouths and apply common sense.
An Online Pass - Which is all that this is - is going to be standard in about 2 years I bet, and it's been present the last year at least, so why the big fuss? There is no reason at all this will hurt Battlefield 3 sales as much as some people on here say it will. C'mon people.. And are there honestly people out there who strictly buy just used games at launch? Because in the first two weeks of sales I'd say at least 85-90% of them are from new copies, which would have absolutely zero effect on the game at all. The difference between this and Call of Duty Elite is that one actually helps out developers while the other is just additional money in Activision's pockets. I'd rather pay no extra than the cost of the game to support them, than a monthly fee to get map overheads and other statistics that I'm sure no one but the COD "hardcore" care about. And before you get into the "You get money off DLC" excuse, they come out with 2-3 DLC packs a year before the next COD comes out. Are you REALLY getting your moneys worth? I'll be getting both this Fall, and I expect a better experience on BF3. But to choose one game over the other based on an online pass is pretty ridiculous...
people who buy used having to pay 10$ will just mean theyll get more new game sales, the only sales they care about. The online pass doesn't effect sales or game quality in any negative way because no one keeps track of used sales.
i don't feel like there doing nothing wrong here, i understand what their trying to do by getting some form of money at least from people who shop from that evil place called gamestop who hugs the full amount of cash i buy all my games new anyway but for those who decide to buy it used if gamestop sells a game for 54.99 when a new game is 59.99 then might as well pay the full 60 than having to pay a extra 10 to play online from buying the used
I F*&KING hate that 5ive gum ad...
Why should ea care they dont see any money from used sales. Gamestop should care not ea.
I think it's the other way around. Why should gamestop care if EA loses money, Gamestop is still making money with every used game sold. EA cares because it's money out of their pocket and into someone elses. It's not like they didn't make money from the beginning, but it's the long term that they are worried about. If 5 million copies of a game was sold and 2 million or so decides to trade their game in. That same 2 million is getting recycled, getting Gamestop 3-5 times more money then the Developer or publisher. What I don't understand without the used games market or Amazon, we could never find that game that went out of production a year a go or so.
@ awi5951 you should stop drinking so much..
How do you know i been drinking stop stalking me you crazy super man suit wearing fanboy lol.
Yet their was reports of BF3 having more preorders then MW3. Plus people forget that Battlefield pretty much owns COD but last games were just joke remakes. MW3 is most likely doom, but in the end then its just kids fighting over this.
"Yet their was reports of BF3 having more preorders then MW3." Yes, because you heard it on the Internet..therefore it must be true.
LOL. I know right. Battlefield 3 will barely crack the 5 million sales barrier. Modern Warfare 3 will probably sell that many in 1 day.
Yet it has been a top seller at stores. Don't be mad that MW3 might not be as good as BF3. Then again every COD game is the same and in two weeks the game is broken.
Eh, it's true for the Gamestop where I live. MW3 has about 2/3 the amount of preorders as BF3.
@NCAzeael Do you people actually go around asking gamestops which game has more preorders? That's kinda sad, no offence.
@Vashlion I used to work at the Gamestop here, and am friends with all but one person currently working there. And this is actually a conversation that we've had a few times, so the last time we got into this discussion we asked Liza, the manager, to check the number of preorders. She couldn't give exact numbers, but said that BF3 was ahead at about a ratio of 3:2.
. EA is looking to punish anyone who buys and trades games...plain and simple. They make millions and millions and some bean counter somewhere said that they could squeeze those who, for whatever reason, can't afford new games or prefers to wait until a better deal comes around. It's just another example of those with the least paying for those with the most...it's all lies, these guys are full of money. Let me tell you a story about these two criminals that will now be making games for EA... ...Everybody holds Jason and Vince whattherefaces from Infinity Ward up like some sort of hero's. Devs from all around gaming accused Activision of ripping them off. Interesting enough, now that details of the lawsuit has come out, it's these two greedy goof balls from IW that are to blame. Do you know that they are in line to make 18 million dollars each...yep, but that wasn't enough as they were planing on leaving and thinking they should/could take COD with them...O_o...add to that, Activision had pooled 84 million dollars for the IW team, meaning that each member was in line to make 800,000 plus their salary FOR 2 YEARS WORK. If you think these guys aren't making money, your nuts. In regards to dedicated servers...as of yet, I haven't heard Epic complain about Gears, but maybe that will change as they see EA are hero's for doing so. EA has gone money crazy the last month or so. As they announce these money making scams, fanboys just shrug and say, hey, they need to make a living...O_o btw...maybe EA is in panic mode as they try and figure out how they will pay for Popcap as it has been shown, they make about 16 million net profit a year...0_o...my math is bad but lets see, 700-1.3 billion depending who you talk to means they will have to...um...lay off hundreds and come with more Pay to play scams...see, it makes sense.
Lol you're posts are funny and so misinformed :D.
Inside out: devils advocate. lol
....says the man with one bubble.
You don't make any sense.
Quote " fanboys just shrug and say, hey, they need to make a living...O_o " By that I guess he's explaining how Activision has pumping out the same effin game with a new paint job since 2007 and fanboys like him keep praying and hoping the next COD will be groundbreaking and revolutionary.
Inside_out, where do you get your information? Either you make shit up or you have a severe problem with reading comprehension. I think its a combination of the two. Its understandable considering your need for a MW enima every day while you keep telling yourself each game is completely different and revolutionary. Anyways, better get to it, we know how you get when you miss your dosage. Chop! Chop!
Shhh...I think he might be handicapped.
Once again inside out went FULL RETARD
Battlefield 3 was never going to outsell MW3 in the first place. EA's CEO even said that.
It won't outsell it but it will take a nice chunkc out of COD. This will be the first time i haven't bought a COD game in a long time. I'm sure there are a few more people out there like me. I'm going with BF3. @allyc4t we don't have to choose, but i refuse to pay another 60 bucks on a game that I know will be the exact same as last year and the year before. It doesn't entertain me anymore.
I don't see why we have to choose between the two. I was fortunate enough to get into the BF3 Alpha and it was awesome. But I have no doubt in my mind that IW and Sledgehammer are going to pull out all the stops to make their game awesome too.
I dunno to me, BF3 looks like solid competition for MW3. That being said competition leads to innovation. I can imagine that MW3 will be an improvement because it has to step up it's game now, if not this iteration maybe the next?
See to me, the battle wasn't about whether BF 3 outsold MW 3 or not. More how much sales it actually took away from the franchise. IF MW 3 goes from selling like 20 million to like 15 million, I would consider that a "Win" for the BF brand.
I wish people would shut up with this crap at the moment. The games aren't even out ffs! JUST WAIT AND SEE! And who gives a crap if one outsells the other.. does that REALLY make the game better?
someone won the e3 who the heck cares we know both of these games will sell a lot of copies so both will be success and this online pass will matter very little in BF3's case since most of are interested will buy it new at launch just let it go already. There hasn't been a day passed when we didn't see BF3 article now i want COD to out sell it just for some LOL
People are starting to realize that EA is greedier then Activision now. Which is a good thing, I mean complain about COD all you want, at least it's a different developer doing them every other year, where as we get the same crappy EA Sports games year in and out, they force developers like Bioware to rush games, they shut down servers a year after the game comes out forcing you to buy the new one if you want to play online and now they come up with truly stupid pass system. The FPS crown was never in doubt, but I'm glad EA/Dice are messing up this much close to launch....PS, were even closer to launch now and we've still seen 0 Xbox 360 footage and only 1:27 on the PS3.
I could care less about the company EA. If it does happen, it's not DICE's fault. Also, no matter now much they mess up before launch, BF3 will still be better.
Different developers working on COD every year is a bad thing you idiot. God I've never seen a bigger COD troll than you raven nomad.
inside_out is as bad, if not worse.
Oh man.. Raven, you are single handedly one of the most annoying N4G user ever.
Activision is way more greedier then EA why I say this because they first priced maps pack for COD 15 dollars which in the past was actually 10 secondly they turned down some franchises like true crime and guitar hero to keep COD alive and thirdly ''Bobby Kotick'' should explain more? At least EA and DICE are working hard for best FPS realistic experience then COD.
"People are starting to realize that EA is greedier then Activision now." Shall I drag Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero out from under the rug, Raven_Nomad? I have absolutely no problem with online passes. I've never understood what all the fuss is about. I buy all of my games new, so I've got nothing to worry about. If CoD had an online pass I wouldn't blame the series. I'd rather Activision receive more profit than GameStop.
Buy the game, plain and simple, If I was the head of a business, I would want people to pay for what I make, not lose money over hard work. If online passes are a way that EA DICE makes money 10 a used game, then so be it. It's not like anyone's paying anymore than a new game. If the game is used for $40 dollars, then adding 10 is still cheaper than buying the game new.
"Sure, you will get some consumers who find the $10 investment worth it, but you’re also gonna have a decent size of your audience who never experiences the online section of your game because they didn’t want to risk the cost." Since when was assuming online is going to be awesome in a Battlefield game a "risky" affair? Of course it's going to be very strong online. I think the bigger risk is buying a Call of Duty game with questionable developers assuming control of the franchise. I wonder if those who purchased Black Ops on PS3 consider BF or CoD to be the riskier franchise? The risk with BF is evidently paying $10 for an online pass because you didn't buy it new. The risk for post-Infinity Ward-exodus CoD games is that the entire game could be a mediocre, buggy mess.