Top
230°

Mass Effect 3 gets an Online Pass on PS3 and Xbox 360

Bioware and Electronic Arts confirmed an online pass for Mass Effect 3 and revealed first info.

Read Full Story >>
translate.google.de
The story is too old to be commented.
DaThreats2536d ago

BF3 now this? :/
This gen is all about $$$

Tarantino_Life2536d ago

What is wrong with it? You can share the code on PSN with five other ppl. If you really want the whole world to use one purchased copy of the game then thats bullshit and Dev's have every right to be pissed of when they could have very well made money if ppl had purchased instead of borrowed.

EVILDEAD3602536d ago

LA Noire..Gears..Call of Duty..Mass Effect 3..

Could care less..LOVE the passes.,because I rarely buy the DLC past the second offering.

Great idea..

Especially for ME3..game will be Titanic when it drops first quarter.

Evil

Heartnet2536d ago

considering both of those games are published by EA this aint surpirsing lol... Probably become standard for EA games

sickbird2536d ago

everything is about money.

shikamaroooo2536d ago

Would you rather developers and publishers make less money which could potentially cut jobs

gamingdroid2536d ago

That's FUD!

EA made $210 million last quarter in profit alone. Heck, they made $10-15 million on the pass alone:

http://www.1up.com/news/ea-...

Publishers don't need your money, but just in case you weren't aware GameStop probably employes more people than EA does, but feel free to donate your own money.

PirateThom2536d ago

And, as I pointed out when people bring up the profit EA made.... the majority of their games have online passes.

$210m profit? That sort of makes a good case for the passes.

gamingdroid2535d ago

***$210m profit? That sort of makes a good case for the passes.***

I suppose then that nasty and restrictive DRM also makes a good case, because plenty of companies make money from that. What about frivolous lawsuits? People make money off that too.

Drugs? Scams? Ability to profit doesn't make it a good case...

Hell, out of that $210 million profit about $10-15 million was from online passes. So no, entire profit didn't come from online passes.

Christopher2536d ago (Edited 2536d ago )

Let me get this straight.

1. You don't want to buy games at full price nor do you want to wait long before the price goes down, so you buy used.

2. Publishers then create an online pass that incurs no extra cost to those who buy new, but for those who buy used.

3. You then complain about a company that just spent millions of dollars on the game you want, yet you don't want to be a customer of theirs.

You do realize that you are doing the exact thing in that your gaming hobby is also all about $$$. Otherwise, you would be buying new rather than used.

I completely understand that Online Passes can adversely affect actual customers (sharing a game in a household with multiple accounts), but I honestly see no way that people who look to spend as little as possible can complain about companies finding ways to get more money.

Tarantino_Life2536d ago

Well said. One thing though. It does not affect sharing a game in a household with multiple accounts because you can share the downloaded file with 5 other accounts. Honestly that is more then enough. If anyone really wants to share the same freakin CD with more then 5 ppl then the publisher has every right to use Online passes as he is passing on what would otherwise have been a possible sale.

gamingdroid2536d ago (Edited 2536d ago )

I think the case for me at least is that it is an inconvenience along with restricted freedom to use something I bought.

I used to be able to play online regardless of the account or console I used, just armed with the disc. I no longer can do that, and to top it off, the community will be affected.

It's hardly positive for me as a consumer, let alone the fact that all industries I'm aware of get's no cut from second hand sales. Would you be pissed off, if you sold your car and the car company made you pay a fee to the manufacturer? How about a piece of software?

Now, if the industry was dying then I would say sure, but we ain't talking about indie developers here. We are talking corporations that is closing in billion dollar profit annually.

Fact is, gaming industry doesn't need a support tax. They need to create better products to justify any increase in cost.

In this case, supporting the industry results in no benefit to me, just makes these publishers richer and in actuality hurts consumer.

It actually makes you wonder what sort of consumer would support this....

Christopher2535d ago (Edited 2535d ago )

***I think the case for me at least is that it is an inconvenience along with restricted freedom to use something I bought. ***

Yes... a monetary-based inconvenience.

*** the community will be affected.***

I'm not sure to what degree, but I do agree it will be affected.

***It's hardly positive for me as a consumer***

If you buy used, you're not their consumer, so why should they care?

***Would you be pissed off, if you sold your car and the car company made you pay a fee to the manufacturer?***

Well, not quite the same thing. Now, if I bought a car and they made me pay a fee to the manufacturer, I would question that seeing as with a car I continue to pay maintenance costs on the vehicle, which includes parts that the manufacturer makes money off of. This is not so with any software.

***They need to create better products to justify any increase in cost.***

Ratings seem to indicate that the Mass Effect games have done just that, as well as many others. But, guess what? People still look to buy many of their games used.

***It actually makes you wonder what sort of consumer would support this....***

I don't think consumers support it so much as are unaffected by it compared to others. It's not like anyone here is holding up a sign say "Every game should have online passes." People are saying that if it's a problem, you should buy it new then.

I think consumers are also able to see that the issue only affects those who are looking to get the game used to save money. Why would one consumer give a rats arse about the stingy behaviour of another? Am I supposed to be concerned that some other gamer, who likely doesn't have money to support his/her hobby in the first place and likely shouldn't be spending as much money in it, has to pay $10 more to play a portion of a game that he/she could just wait a few months to buy new and just as cheap, if not cheaper?

====

The simple fact is that while people complain about companies doing online passes for the money, these same gamers are doing the exact same thing by looking to buy used to save money. And, regardless of how great a game is, most games out there will see an increase in used sales compared to new sales because people will want to pay less for even high quality games.

IMHO, both sides are going about it all wrong. Gamers are complaining that they want to buy games at a certain price point, but don't want to wait for the games to reach those price points. Publishers are looking for more money with online passes when really that money should go to the developers.

Either way, I'm unaffected. I don't buy used and I have way more than enough games to play that by the time a game hits the $30 or $20 price for a new one, I still probably have a few games in queue to play while I pick that one up and add it to the queue.

gamingdroid2535d ago (Edited 2535d ago )

***If you buy used, you're not their consumer, so why should they care?***

I buy my games new, but I can't lend it to my friend. As a company, I don't expect them to care, but if they do I'm far more likely to buy from them. I support companies that attempts to profit by NOT being anti-consumer.

Therefore as a consumer you should care!

Also, I might not be your customer now, but I might just be in the future and buy your game day-1!

***Now, if I bought a car and they made me pay a fee to the manufacturer, I would question that seeing as with a car I continue to pay maintenance costs on the vehicle, which includes parts that the manufacturer makes money off of. This is not so with any software.***

That is an ongoing cost, but I'm free to use third party parts. I don't have to have my car fixed by the manufacturer, so I'm free to do as I please.

However, keep in mind that publishers still profit from DLC, future iterations of the game, licenses for variety of things including musis, books and movies.

Can I have my own servers? In fact, this is a change to how it used to be where the ability to play online came with the disc, not an individual license.

***Ratings seem to indicate that the Mass Effect games have done just that, as well as many others. But, guess what? People still look to buy many of their games used.***

The used game market exist because there is a profit to be made, which suggest publishers are pricing their product too high. Besides, used game sellers actually benefit consumers by providing jobs.

***I think consumers are also able to see that the issue only affects those who are looking to get the game used to save money. Why would one consumer give a rats arse about the stingy behaviour of another?***

Because it affects me. I bought a game, with less freedom than I used to have including my ability to lend/share the game to others. I don't see why any consumer would support this considering the publishers don't need higher profits and gives consumers less flexibility to the point of hurting them.

***And, regardless of how great a game is, most games out there will see an increase in used sales compared to new sales because people will want to pay less for even high quality games.***

The fact of the matter is that for a "used" game to exist, it must have been new at one point... increase in used sales doesn's say much, but maybe the product is too expensive. I don't see "used" movies/music being an issue, yet books seems to be due to the higher price with a baked in higher profit margin.

***Either way, I'm unaffected. I don't buy used and I have way more than enough games to play that by the time a game hits the $30 or $20 price for a new one, I still probably have a few games in queue to play while I pick that one up and add it to the queue.***

It affects me minimally, despite the fact that I never buy used games and rarely lend my games away. However, you might not be affected now, but one day you might find yourself affected by some other nasty restricting terms.

The bottom line, these companies don't need your support as so many people claim. Industry is as big as it has ever been with massive profits. Now an indie developer, I can see a need to support them. Gazillion dollar company? Not so much!

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2535d ago
Baka-akaB2536d ago

why act surprised and hurt ? ME2 had already an online pass , just named otherwise

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2535d ago
RonaldRaygun2536d ago

Are they really expecting this online pass to increase sales in a franchise that is all about single player? I'm sorta looking forward to trying out the new MP mode, but in no way is that a deciding factor for me buying the game new. Being able to play it on Day 1 is why I'm buying it new, not for some online pass for a SP game.

oliveira3112536d ago

Drop the price of these games and I'll consider this Online Pass business.

iXenon2536d ago

You're still paying the same price, it just means you can't buy used.

I really don't see what the big deal is. Just buy 'new'

user8586212536d ago

at this rate a video game crash is bound to come

Makarov902536d ago (Edited 2536d ago )

Good thing im buying mass effect 3 for the amazing sp. EA most likely next gen will be charging $5 to unlock the mp portion of their games on top of another $10 if you buy it used. What a ripoff.

Show all comments (41)
The story is too old to be commented.