Battlefield 3 online pass "probable"

By Fred Dutton Published 1 August, 2011

DICE: "Hopefully people understand why."

Battlefield 3 will likely feature some kind of online pass, developer DICE has announced.

The game's executive producer Patrick Bach told GamerZines that players will "probably" have to register a code included with new copies of the game to access multiplayer modes.

However, he then added, "but I don't think it's an online pass, I think it's our own backend. I'm not sure I want to call our system an online pass."

When asked directly whether it was demanding anyone buying the game second-hand to pay to play online, Bach responded, "I think we are."

Bach went on to defend the move, explaining that enabling online play was an expensive process, and one that players picking up a used copy of the game should be expected to contribute towards.

"The whole idea is that we're paying for servers and if you create a new account there is a big process on how that is being handled in the backend. We would rather have you buy a new game than a used game because buying a used game is only a cost to us; we don't get a single dime from a used game, but we still need to create server space and everything for you.

"We want people to at least pay us something to create this because we're paying for it. It was actually a loss for us to have new players.

"Hopefully people understand why. It's not to punish people. To us it's compensation."

EA is yet to confirm an online pass for the game, but we'll update when it has made things official.

Picture of Fred.

About Fred Dutton

Fred Dutton is Eurogamer's US news editor, based in Washington DC.

Read more articles from Fred by visiting the Fred Dutton archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (115) Latest comment 9 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • superted1974 #1 10 months ago

    It seems fair to me.

  • captain_Carl #2 10 months ago

    Don't need to create a server space anyway. if i buy a used game i am replacing the server space the original owner had, surely?

  • Captain_JMac #3 10 months ago

    Quite right too.

  • ThePissartist #4 10 months ago

    Makes sense. One way of dealing with used games.

  • DavoTheDiv #5 10 months ago

    I completely agree with this. It's the only way Studios can get a cut of the pre-owned market. If fact i'd go one step further, have a code to play the game full stop. This would stop the greedy bastard stores, and help fight piracy.
    Edited by DavoTheDiv at 01/08/11 @ 17:21

  • Ejou #6 10 months ago

    Makes nothing but sense. Agree 100%.

  • richarddavies #7 10 months ago

    I just took this for granted really. I thought they do it for all there games now EA?

  • silversun #8 10 months ago

    I think we are getting used to online pass by now but for battlefeild this will be intresting see what happens as i expect a lot more people that dont buy as many games to pick up this game so for that alone it be intresting see what happens.

  • KorpusDraige #9 10 months ago

    @Captain_Carl I don't think it works that way. The disc doesn't have it's own IP address built into it. To them, the person who owned the used copy before, is still activated into the system, then when you buy it from the old owner, it activates you from your ps3/pc/360 system.

  • arcam #10 10 months ago

    Personally I think it's a silly move when you're trying to establish a new franchise (this is a different game to Bad Company). Increased players online will only help it get established.

    Call of Duty's strength is that people play it because their friends play it - Battlefield should really be trying to capitalise on that and make sure as many people play it as possible.

  • SavageEvil #11 10 months ago

    This isn't wrong at all, if you want to support the developers and publishers you would have to buy the game new and not second hand, thing is those second hand stores are making a killing off used games and aren't giving the developers anything for it, how you think gamestop got so huge? If you want to support DICE/EA Battlefield 3 game, don't buy it used. I know I am buying this brand new why because these guys are pretty devoted to their base and they actually release Beta's for us to play and get into before the game hits. No one should cry if they have to charge for the back end, even though you may think that you are replacing someone who returned the game, you are but their ID cannot be used again it's still tied to their accounts. So in effect they are still creating a space for new people who bought the game used but the developer don't see a dime but have to put in the man hours and effort for a piggyback user. Just buy it used to avoid having to make two transactions, gaming is starting to get too complicated for a hobby.

  • MiniAmin #12 10 months ago

    Love the series, and i'll be buying this happily upon its release, but 'compensation' is a nonsense excuse. You'll get compensated when I hand over my 40 pounds.

  • Eraysor #13 10 months ago

    I still can't stand online passes. What happens when the servers shut down in a few years' time (which EA is very fond of doing) and you've got nothing to show for your 800-1200MSP? If people aren't buying the game new, they obviously feel it's either too expensive to begin with or not having enough value for the consumer. It seems like everyone is fine with being completely shafted these days. Whatever happened to actually owning what you buy?

    You don't see MW3 using an online pass, and that's the most popular online console game there is. As much as people like to bash them, Activision are obviously delivering a product that people are happy to pay for and hold on to, unlike EA's recent output.

    EDIT: All that seems to happen nowadays is that the price of new games falls to about £20 after they've only been out for a month. Look at Red Faction Armageddon for example. Perhaps if games were cheaper to begin with, retail wouldn't be able to make such ludicrous profits on second-hand games and new software would be able to compete more easily.
    Edited by Eraysor at 01/08/11 @ 17:46

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #14 10 months ago

    I do get the feeling if this had been COD implementing an Online Pass, the comments on this forum wouldnt of been quite as favourable.

    I dont mind the idea of an Online pass, but only if there providing dedicated servers or something more than just matchmaking. I have a good internet connection and therefore get promoted to Host on a lot of these peer to peer games, but i dont get a cut of the online pass for my increased bandwidth consumption :p

  • cheeky_BILLY #15 10 months ago

    seems totally fair and reasonable to me. when you purchase the game new then part of the price includes access to online modes and features. why should preowned players avoid this cost? like the article states a great deal of work and money goe's into maintaining online servers and accounts.

    second games only line the pockets of the greedy bastards at GAME . i'd rather pay it to EA/DICE knowing it's helping provide a good service.

    don't mind paying for an online pass on PS3. Would feel different if i was already paying for XBL though.

  • dirtysteve #16 10 months ago

    This is what happened after everyone pissed on project 10-dollar.

  • homerramone #17 10 months ago

    So:
    CDs only feature 3/4 of the album and you have to download the other 1/4. This will cost if you buy it second hand.
    DVD/BluRay should feature 3/4 of the movie and again you need to pay if you bought the movie s/h

    Im sure someone will be along to tell me exactly why this is different and it will be to do with the cost of making [insert other media here] said item. Its perfectly fair because those evil shops are getting money from s/h sales. (just like they do for (insert other media here] )

    (Cmon then.. neg away... I care.. really I do)

    Oh and yes.. I will be voting with my wallet because no i wont be buying this.


  • ISmoke #18 10 months ago

    Oh, we understand, Dice.
    It's because EA are a bunch of wankers.


    I should add that i buy most of my games digitally so it never really effects me but it's still a dick move. Surely the server space stays the same as with a used copy the previous owners spot has now been passed on to you.

  • Quickstick4 #19 10 months ago

    @GamesProgrammer - COD doesn't uses dedicated servers. EA games use dedicated servers that EA pays for and maintain - this is why EA dragged its heels getting onto Xbox Live with Xbox 1; because they wanted to use there own servers.

    EDIT: Negged for an factual comment :-) - I love Eurogamer :-D
    Edited by Quickstick4 at 02/08/11 @ 01:01

  • AdamAsunder #20 10 months ago

    I've never seen this many positive comments towards an online pass. I feel some people here are a bit too emotionally invested in EA defeating Activision in 'Battle of the lesser Evils'

    No to online passes. Offer a bonus for buying new, not punishing people who buy second hand. I buy second hand, if I enjoy the game I will pay for additional DLC so to say they're not already benefitting from the preowned is ignorant at best. In a lot of cases they'll be able to sell the same DLC multiple times for the same copy of the game.

    Games are way too expensive. I will only buy one or two new for the 'day one' price.

  • orangpelupa #21 10 months ago

    Release online pass for PC too please... (or something like that)

    so those like me that stuck with a country with hard to get original game but pirated games everywhere. Instead waiting 2 months of importing the game (yes it took that long), we can just buy the online pass and apply it to the pirated game.

    thus making original game easier to buy.
    it like converting pirated buyer into original buyer.

    and no, digital download is not a solution.
    - when i bought original Portal 2 retail dvd (took me more than 2 months to arrive), it take me a few days to finish updating on steam. Then it got new update again... dont wast time i just buy the pirated version already updated to newest update, then "copy paste" it to my steam. "Steam verify", viola it finish with little re-download :D

    - when i bought original need for speed from steam, i ended not downloading it even today... too big.

    FYI, download speed is about 384Kbps at max.

  • Quixz #22 10 months ago

    Is it just me or are EA becoming the bad guy with every passing week?
    Edited by Quixz at 01/08/11 @ 17:54

  • Salaminizer #23 10 months ago

    it would make sense if you could have multiple players with a single copy. if someone buys a used game, it's because another player stopped using "his space". yes, a new account will be created, but that's just small database space. it's OK that you want new players to pay for a key (it's very reasonable), but "server space" is just a poor excuse.

  • nbringer #24 10 months ago

    Authentication for online multilayer seems fair. Can't say the same about single player.

  • HyperTails #25 10 months ago

    Good news, its about supporting the industry here. They aren't a charity, and server costs have to come from somewhere. I fully support this move, which seems fair and reasonable. Also good to see people on here supporting this move as well.

  • repeater #26 10 months ago

    @arcam: "Personally I think it's a silly move when you're trying to establish a new franchise (this is a different game to Bad Company)"

    Battlefield? New franchise? Surely you jest!

  • Pinky_Floyd #27 10 months ago

    No creation of space required as the original owner just vacated his slot when he sold the game.

    What EA don't get is that its the second hand players who keep up the numbers and the community alive as time passes.

    Someone has to replace those who are bored of the game.

    Won't be me though because I'm not falling for it :)

  • Cronan #28 10 months ago

    They're quite welcome to do what they want with the game, it's their property, but this guy being afraid of calling it an online pass is what makes him a cunt.

  • bodhi85uk #29 10 months ago

    If you buy the game youre helping pay for server costs, if you sell it on youre no longer a burden on the server but whoever has your pre-owned copy is... and thats OK because the first person already paid, its not like they still have the game and could get online at any moment

  • arcam #30 10 months ago

    @repeater

    On consoles I mean.

  • Viz1 #31 10 months ago

    Well ea/dice another customer that won't be buying.... Screw you...
    I'm fed up of all the crap these compani

  • r.routledge #32 10 months ago

    GREEDY!! Is the word your looking for.....and I buy all my games from
    New but, I wont be buying anything with a pass needed for second hand. I think people pay enough or games as it is, never mind adding bits on every here.

  • Viz1 #33 10 months ago

    Companies come out with, take it up with the game shops... Not the actual people who buy your games...

    What next oh our electric bill has gone up we need to bring out another pass for single player to pay for this...

  • AVisualEpiphany #34 10 months ago

    As I've said many times before, I will always support these online passes etc
    If you don't want to pay the extra to play online with your preowned copy, then spend the extra (at most) £5 to get a new copy?
    (Look in GAME & you will struggle to find preowned new releases for anything more than a fiver less than new)
    Why do people seem to believe that GAME etc deserve all their money rather than those who have spent YEARS working long hours creating the game simply for your entertainment?

  • jablonski #35 10 months ago

    "They aren't a charity, and server costs have to come from somewhere. "

    Server costs are a massive amount cheaper than they used to be.
    But playing online used to be free.

    Someone is making a massive profit somewhere

  • varnavides #36 10 months ago

    When people use music as an example this does not take into account that musicians (and actors come to think of it) get royalties.

    Could the industry not try and come to some similar arrangement regarding second hand sales?

  • Arsecake_Baker #37 10 months ago

    This is a con and a scam!

    I will be buying BF3 as i buy my games new, but the inclusion of an online pass is nothing but a scam to make money from the sell of secondhand games, the price you pay for media should include all costs including server upkeep for that disc, regardless of whether it's new or pre-owned, once it's bougyht, it's bought, secondhand owners are not a burden and as peeps have mentioned it's the secondhand market that usually keeps the franchise alive long after it's sell by date....i'm sorry EA/Dice but yes i do "understand" i "understand" your ripping off gamers.

    I already pay to use Xbox live, that payment as i understand it, is to allow people the option of playing games online, your asking people to pay twice!

  • gandhimaster #38 10 months ago

    homerramone

    this thread will end up being exactly the same as all the other ones regards online pass. 2nd hand car sales will be up shortly i'm sure.

    fact is games are different to cd's. even though the maker of a cd doesn't get paid twice for a second hand sale, they are not losing money at the same time.

    edit - oh and jablonski - the people making the profits are the people making the games. thats fair, yes?

    a game developer etc has to have a new account registered, maintained etc and there is the possibility of the original buyer to get another copy so they can't just delete their online data.

    its all about on going costs.

    why don't people get this??

    the point about switching off the servers is a very valid one tho, as soon as there is the online pass system i believe those games servers should never be switched off.
    Edited by gandhimaster at 01/08/11 @ 18:59

  • Viz1 #39 10 months ago

    Don't get me wrong, I agree they should get something bck off the preowned games, but why take it out on the customer... Take it out on the shops or buy bck the games and sell them on their website...

    Stop fleecing your customers

  • Spekingur #40 10 months ago

    It's okay. I don't need an online pass when I buy it on Steam... oh wait...

  • God_Octo #41 10 months ago

    Yes, I know gandhimaster just said it would come up, but I still don't think that there is much difference between say second hand cars and the games market, or not enough to justify paying twice for a whole game. Cars nowadays have computers on board, so they'd need similar needs at the manufacturing ends. Or mobile phones. Or sat navs. All of these things require the manufacturer to support the product after they're sold it, but you don't have to pay to access their features.

    The problem isn't second hand sales, its that publishers have decided that £40 is the only price point available to them, and that selling at any other is wrong. Forcing people to buy features shouldn't be the way to go. Time and time again we've seen the impact that a lower price point has on sales. Publishers should start considering £40 to be the maximum price point for a AAA product- not every single title. I've saiditi before, but Bethesda selling Wet brand new at £25 quid made it a winner. No one, especially me, would have bought that game at £40, but a reduced price point sold it for me- thats why games like Blood Stone and Singularity suddenly jump into the charts- a reduced price point. This is what publishers need to look at- not charging £40 automatically and then expecting second hand buyers to pay on top of that.
    Edited by God_Octo at 01/08/11 @ 19:09

  • SavageEvil #42 10 months ago

    @eraysor, how many map packs did you buy for MW2? BO? Don't be naive Activision recently launched CoD Elite, with supposed enhanced online interface and what not. This free thing with MW isn't going to last forever, watch and see. MW doesn't even have dedicated servers so they aren't having to shell out for the mass amount of players on it. DICE on the other hand are going to have dedicated servers I believe, larger battlefields so that will of course be a bit of a strain on any network once you get 24 players going in one room. BO, MW2 everything goes to hell when the host has a laggy connection or up and quits. If the ONE TIME pay for online pass is too much then you are in the wrong hobby friend. It's damn near free if you buy the game brand new and unlike having a car it's not a yearly pay out to drive, it's one time pay for the used game market.

    "So:
    CDs only feature 3/4 of the album and you have to download the other 1/4. This will cost if you buy it second hand.
    DVD/BluRay should feature 3/4 of the movie and again you need to pay if you bought the movie s/h

    Im sure someone will be along to tell me exactly why this is different and it will be to do with the cost of making [insert other media here] said item. Its perfectly fair because those evil shops are getting money from s/h sales. (just like they do for (insert other media here] )

    (Cmon then.. neg away... I care.. really I do)

    Oh and yes.. I will be voting with my wallet because no i wont be buying this. "

    The above was said by someone who claims they won't be buying the game...seriously. Let me get this straight, you want gamers who bought the game used, already not paying full price, but getting all the benefits of the people who paid full price for the game? Just because the person who sold their game isn't playing it anymore doesn't mean that they might not pick it up again and still would like to use their stats and their game tag without having to create a new one. EA servers aren't going to maintain themselves and like it pointed out it's a one time payment, get over yourselves you honestly can't be that cheap. DLC is optional, you don't need it. Playing online is optional as well, as you can see it costs money for bandwidth and front end and backend, what's wrong with some people these days. PSN is about as free as you are going to get with all it's bells and whistles, like I said buy it new and support the developer.

    Since when has a second hand store given you a deal on a hot game? NEVER! You'd be a fantastic liar if you said they have, these guys take your money and give you a game that they had no hand in making and the developers have to allow you space on their servers to play online for a product that you didn't pay them for? I'm sorry but online is a service that is afforded to paying customers, second hand customers didn't pay any money to the developers nor publishers so why should they be afforded amenities that paying customers actually paid for?

    Unless those second hand players are actually buying DLC, then they aren't helping the online part of the game at all. They are just eating up bandwidth as only thing that is left is an empty community. No one actually paid the devs/pub for the game and are playing online for basically free, while the devs have to fork out for maintenance on their end. Right that sounds like a fair trade off to me. MW3 will be barebones online modes for free, watch all your stat tracking get culled because of the exclusive Elite function advanced stat tracking. I am still trying to figure out what on earth could be worth signing up for Elite, does anyone really see the gold lining in it?

    Hey it's a ONE TIME PAYMENT! So that does not cover the day to day costs of maintenance of a server indefinitely. What's wrong with some of you? The way you think is kind of strange, everything costs money and is it's free someone is taking a hit to give that to you for free. What world do you live in where you think 59.99 should allow free online access indefinitely for a game? What is this pay once and have an on going service afforded to you for free?

  • sh0cked #43 10 months ago

    Dice: "buying a used game is only a cost to us; we don't get a single dime from a used game, but we still need to create server space and everything for you."

    In real terms this is absolutely rubbish.. if you create space for each person who buy the game then when that person who bought it new sells it it free's up 1 space.. I call Shananigans on this whole money-making bull crap argument!

  • homerramone #44 10 months ago

    -gandhimaster's
    Youre saying that - but no explanation is offered. I see no difference other than CDs or Movies (which are 1/4 the cost) also have the weight of illegal internet downloads on their shoulders. (Yes you can download games illegally but I suspect the % of people that can/will download games is somewhat smaller than those who download movies and music)

    Furthermore its the PUBLISHER (And console maker) thats getting the money from the sales of online pass - NOT the developer.

    As has been said over and over - its NOTHING to do with second hand sales and if it is its the wrong approach. Take it out on the shops not the buyers.

  • HD_Swagger #45 10 months ago

    "enabling online play was an expensive process, and one that players picking up a used copy of the game should be expected to contribute towards" - so this is sharing the cost then? In that case I assume they are going to knock a few euro off the price of a new copy? I won't hold my breath.

    I'm going to buy this at launch but this is still nonsense.

  • arcam #46 10 months ago

    What world do you live in where you think 59.99 should allow free online access indefinitely for a game?

    Seriously? Is this so hard to fathom? I know of £5 games that allow free online access indefinitely.

    Just a couple of years ago, every single multiplayer game available gave you free online access indefinitely, no matter what the price.
    Edited by arcam at 01/08/11 @ 19:42

  • dsmx #47 10 months ago

    They do of course realise that if they are genuinely concerned about this used copy business they could just stop making console versions of the game and just make a PC version then there won't be any as none of the main game shops take PC game trade ins.

  • DwarfyP #48 10 months ago

    @captain_Carl
    If you buy a used game that original owner isn't deleted from the database. It is a new entry in the database with a whole new stats tracking system behind it.

  • varnavides #49 10 months ago

    Just a thought but why don't the likes of Microsoft and Sony either buy Game/HMV or set up their own stores in High Streets and shopping centres? Or maybe a chance for them to work with publishers before it all goes download only.

    (Have i answered my own question?)

    The two Sony stores near me have long since shut down.

    (edit because I can't spell)
    Edited by varnavides at 01/08/11 @ 19:47

  • arcam #50 10 months ago

    It is a new entry in the database, but it's certainly not a whole new stats tracking system. How do you think the cost of an online pass compares to the cost of a new database entry?

    Honestly, I can understand an extra charge to discourage second-hand buyers or to increase revenue, but the argument that this payment merely covers the server costs of an additional player is a total fallacy.
    Edited by arcam at 01/08/11 @ 19:50

  • Pastici #51 10 months ago

    Wait, Battlefield does it so people are ok with it now? Alright...

  • AceGrace #52 10 months ago

    "Hopefully people understand why."

    Is it because you are greedy?

  • Darth_Flibble #53 10 months ago

    It use to be just for 2nd hand sales at Game or HMV etc but they seem to have a problem with ALL 2nd hand sales. Seen it on here, people complaining how developers don't get any money if I sell a game to another person directly. Sorry but tough and this online pass effects the price I can sell the game for.

    Game, hmv etc should come to arrangement with the publishers over 2nd hand games but its far easier to screw the gamers over but gamers are too eager to take one for the team

  • metalangel #54 10 months ago

    ""The whole idea is that we're paying for servers and if you create a new account there is a big process on how that is being handled in the backend. We would rather have you buy a new game than a used game because buying a used game is only a cost to us; we don't get a single dime from a used game, but we still need to create server space and everything for you."

    Fuck off with your lies. You're paying for servers because you decided you would, and took away our option to host our own leaving us with no choice. The game would play exactly the same without the account tracking and stats YOU decided you wanted.

    What's more, you have now built a reputation of being completely unable to deliver these features as advertised on launch day. BF1943 and BF:BC2 both launched with their servers completely overwhelmed, paying customers unable to connect. It took months for the only real advantage to the stats tracking (the two bonus weapons) in BC2 to be operational because in your infinite stupidity the necessary 'big processes' (the Veteran website) was offline when the game launched.

    You think you are entitled to more money, you're not. Why should I buy your products when you openly show contempt for me and my rights as a consumer?
    Edited by metalangel at 01/08/11 @ 20:02

  • fizzyfish #55 10 months ago

    "I'm not sure I want to call our system an online pass."

    Is that because it isn't an online pass or is it because you're trying to distance yourselves from a phrase that currently courts controversy? ;)
    Edited by fizzyfish at 04/08/11 @ 02:12

  • AceGrace #56 10 months ago

    Games are too highly priced. We have evidence.

    Dungeon Siege 3 bombed at full price. As soon as it went under £20 (after a week or so), its now sitting in the top 10.

    But of course there is no corelation between sales and price! ;-)

  • shadowdogg #57 10 months ago

    Erm, on consoles its all mainly P2p anyway

  • davearnie #58 10 months ago

    Post deleted at 23:37:55 14-04-2012

  • octo #59 10 months ago

    It's funny, because the cost is entirely borne by the consumer. The fact of the matter is that publishers and developers do not receive a single pound of revenue for a game sold second hand. So why not sell the game as download only, eliminating the possibility of second hand retail? Oh that's right, because you'd sell a tenth of the copies and piss off your retail partners who are seemingly more important than your customers. FFS, the only losers in the development of the online pass are consumers. Why can't people see (or seemingly care about) that? Every publisher is using the same argument to force the consumer to pay for something they used to get for free. That argument is complete bullshit.

    What about all of the microtransactions and downloadable map packs and ingame items bought by second hand consumers? Or do they not count? Why not monetise your multiplayer in a different way rather than just dividing your community and making your player base smaller? Utter madness.

    *edit* also a great point by shadowdog - actual gaming on consoles is carried out P2P, it's just the authentication and stat tracking happening centrally. GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Edited by octo at 01/08/11 @ 20:58

  • alan_stealth #60 10 months ago

    Rationalise this as much as you want or don't.
    Truth is I'd rather give my money to an actual games developer that is greedy - than a greedy retailer (i.e. Game) who have had it coming for a long time.

  • themorganator #61 10 months ago

    I don't know how people can agree with this. If someone buys a used copy and then buys the DLC, the developers 'server space' costs are more than covered. If studios want to make more money, it's simple: make better games with more compelling DLC. In any case, I think this is more about the weasel publishers than the game devs.

  • DAN.E.B #62 10 months ago

    "Is it just me or are EA becoming the bad guy with every passing week?"

    EA have been "the bad a guy" a long time its just that they saw a massive drop in sales a few years ago and thought they better stop shafting gamers as it was bad for buisiness.
    Now they are making money everyone better lube up because they will do it again for as long as they can
    they arent the worst tho
    There mearly the young apprentice to the dark lord Activision

  • White_Westie #63 10 months ago

    as long as i get a refund if the close the service its not a problem to me.

    if they do close the service after i have paid specifically to access online, then i am sure that some greedy solicitor would stick a class action on EA and sue :)

    note:all these passes do not state are not time limited, etc. and cannot be legally binding as anyone under 18 cant enter a contract such as this...

    Wait for the first suit and the rest will fall......

  • CaptainKid #64 10 months ago

    Even Battlefield 1942 had a code you needed to enter..

    Still, one thing good about console online games is (now was apparently) you could sell and buy them second hand.

  • metalangel #65 10 months ago

    @CaptainKid: Different altogether.

    That was a CD key, only one instance of it could be active online at any one time (in other words, it was unique to that copy of the game, not the user). If I decided to sell/give you my copy of BF1942, you could use that CD key and play online without having to give EA more money.

  • johnson81 #66 10 months ago

    I really don't understand why consumers buy this crap. This and DLC are the biggest rip offs ever. I will never buy DLC and find myself playing older games because of it. DLC @ 800msp, I can get a full 20 hour game off Steam for that price.

  • mukki #67 10 months ago

    ok I can understand this but it is somewhat annoying.
    So ok I have to sign in to psn or xbox live and the sign with EA....

    process should become streamlined at one point!
    We will end up with having to share our profile infos with every bloody game publishing company...

  • PearOfAnguish #68 10 months ago

    See Metalangel's comment.

    All this bullshit about it being required to pay for their server costs would not be necessary if they still gave us the ability to create and host our own servers without restriction. During the glory days of BF1942 it was the fans who paid for and maintained the vast majority of the servers. But EA wanted more control, now we don't get any more fun modded servers with low-grav silliness or rocket powered jeeps, and they can force second hand buyers to pay just to get online.

    "We will end up with having to share our profile infos with every bloody game publishing company..."

    Yes, that is what they want. They want you to buy into their ecosystems and they want your information so they can target you for more shit later on.
    Edited by PearOfAnguish at 01/08/11 @ 22:20

  • Nephirion #69 10 months ago

    I think a better solution would be a seperate subscription for those that want all the stats crap and other pissing competition stuff. Personally make the MP free with a peer to peer type system for 360 after all we are already paying xbox live subscription just to play online.

  • sfp_noodle #70 10 months ago

    What? I thought you wanted to beat Activision EA? You've just given them and their fans a whole load of extra ammunition now. No way is BF3 going to topple COD with shitty customer raping tactics like this.

    Also a big LOL to the people supporting this utter bullshit "online pass" crap just because the devs are creating Battlefield 3. If it was Activision or anyone else doing it you'd be ripping into them.
    Edited by sfp_noodle at 01/08/11 @ 23:41

  • gandhimaster #71 10 months ago

    homerramone

    thats all true mate, but second hand sales of anything don't go in anybody's pocket apart from the retailer.
    the difference between games and everything else, as mentioned, is purely that there is an ongoing cost for a game. i'm completely against all piracy which does massively harm sales of products.

    there really needs to be a scheme whereby developers/publishers get royalty payments for 2nd hand sales. the online pass may be just for the publisher, but its the publishers that pay for a lot of the game development so at least somebody is getting paid.

  • sjmlondon #72 10 months ago

    I think the online pass if justified given the expected quality product that will be Battlefield 3.

    If I get a fraction of the playing time out of it that I have had with Battlefield Bad Company 2 then it will be money well spent. I would also prefer to ensure the developers like Dice get their due rewards from the game, rather than naft retailers like Game/ Gamestation cashing in on the second hand market.It is also a preferable model than having to pay an additional monthly subscription to pay the game online on top of Xbox live.

    There is a dilemma though. I don't think it should apply to every game especially a lot of the shovelware out there including most movie tie-ins. The multiplayer aspect of too many games die all too quickly these days and given the state of the economy gamers haven't got the cash to buy every game out there and are probably buying a lot fewer games overall.

    The propect of having to fork out £10 for an online pass when you've bought the game second hand or rented it to save money it isn't really appealing and probably just kills off a game online user base even quicker, giving less incentive for any one coming to the game late to buy it new. A catch 22 situation for developers.

  • FooAtari #73 10 months ago

    So many mugs here desperate for a slice of the latest way to wallet rape gamers. I just dont get the mentality of most gamers...

    I mean really, you seriously think the automatic process of adding a new player to the server costs 5, 10 or 15 quid to the company?

    I don't agree with the way retailers are turning into second hand dealers(this i what it's about, if you believe this server cost bullshit, your a fool). But I'm completey entitled to deal in used games weather the games industry likes it or not(fwiw I dont use retailers). If they want a slice of the profits, they need to take it up with retail, not the consumer. It's not my problem and I wont be your solution.

  • aids #74 10 months ago

    F U. Let us host our own games.

  • Viz1 #75 10 months ago

    If I buy a second hand game, at half the price and then buy the pass, I would still be paying less than full price... Is that right/or wrong???

  • xuiton #76 10 months ago

    Now that EA is doing it, i'm sure every other company will.

  • Harmonica #77 10 months ago

    Games publishers are at odds with the second hand market, but really, they are only in this position because the prices for their games start out so expensive. Lower initial prices would see more people buying on release rather than waiting for a copy on ebay months later.

    It's a fundamental right of consumers to sell their belongings, I don't like to see publishers essentially trying to eliminate this possibility.

    The correct solution is to implement a per-copy key which can be traded along with the game. Hell - why don't EA lead the way with introducing a second hand market they run, where users can trade their copy of the game along with a key? Or have EA generate a new key each time a game is resold? They could even take a percentage cut?

    Answer: they are stupid and stubborn and don't like innovative solutions.
    Edited by Harmonica at 02/08/11 @ 01:37

  • orpheus #78 10 months ago

    Hmm, well I'd considered getting this, but they can suck mah fat tits if it includes the Online Pass.

    All the chumps white-knighting this because of the 'stat-tracking' fail to realise said tracking will be an entirely automated system that couldn't give a toss if it were managing 5 people or 5000. If you sell your game, you sell your server usage with it, which is then transferred to the new owner. No extra work is done, it's just digits on a fucking screen somewhere.

    It's a money grab. How anyone can be ignorant enough to interpret it as anything else is beyond me.
    Edited by orpheus at 02/08/11 @ 01:28

  • abzddon #79 10 months ago

    I ended up buying BFBC2 brand new because of their online pass (free map packs), and I was thorughly dissappointed. Lag and bugs over shadowed what was truly a great game.

    Did EA/Dice respond to these problems because we bought the game brand new and supported them? No... they just opened up a thread in the forums, after the people flooded the thread with problems... they disappeared! No dev's bothered replying or fixing the problems past page 3 out of 100+. Might have rented this game to check it out, definately not buying it, not again. Online pass just makes me less likely to bother renting.

  • vmanb #80 10 months ago

    Was going to buy both this and MW3 but not anymore, saved me 40 notes anyway so cheers EA.

  • ubergine #81 10 months ago

    The better way to monetise second hand copies is to offer com

  • ubergine #82 10 months ago

    The better way to monetise second hand copies is to offer compelling DLC and other modes/mods. Like Baattlefield Vietnam or Onslaught or that thing where shit players can pay to unlock all the weapons early.

  • AttroPheed #83 10 months ago

    They do this on purpose to kill the community faster. If people are still enjoying Battlefield 3 why would they buy Battlefield 4?

  • Mr-Carnage #84 10 months ago

    The main problem i have with this online pass system is that now when you buy a game that uses it, such as battlefield, you are effectively buying two separate products bundled together, the online multiplayer and the offline campaign. Since they are willing to sell the online multiplayer on its own to people who buy the game pre-owned they should also be willing to sell the offline component of the game separate for a reduced cost for people who have no interest in playing online and only want to play the campaign.

  • Vyggo #85 10 months ago

    Aah.. lovely comments.
    I hope some of you will ever be responsible for a business, and people will call your efforts to make it succesful "greedy".

  • Brownie-uk7 #86 10 months ago

    I am quite happy with this arrangement. Keeping those servers running for millions of users costs money and if it is a choice between this and P2P then I know which way I'd go.

    I also never buy second hand games as they smell of poor people!

  • Diabeu #87 10 months ago

    imagine Activision stating such nonsense. Pitchforks and torches for everybody

  • ozzzy189 #88 10 months ago

    So when I buy this, my son has to buy an online pass on top of his live sub? Yeah, I get that. It's completely 100% fair.
    Cunts.

  • ShovelyJoe #89 10 months ago

    I am not sure if I find the company's efforts to squeeze money out of us at every given opportunity or people's willingness to pay for things they used to get for free and defend this BS more offensive??

    Actually, it is definitely the sheepish mentality of people apathetically accepting this nonsense that disturbs me. There have been so many well made points as why this is unjustifiable I wont repeat them.

    Yet again another of modern life's dichotomies....I want to play the game so badly but I want to stick it to the man!!! Why cant acting morally righteous be a little easier????

  • metalangel #90 10 months ago

    @Vyggo: Likewise, I hope someday you run a business and it fails when customers object to all the extra costs you tack onto the final bill, shrieking "I'm just trying to make more money from you, I'm not a charity!" when queried.

  • FireMonkey #91 10 months ago

    When people sell a game second hand they don't just vacate their spot on the server and give it to someone else, they actually take up a new spot. EA has no idea if a player who is not playing any more has sold the game or has gone on holiday, so they still need to keep all the data on the servers. I know the data doesn't take up that much space, but it does amount to the second hand player not giving EA any money but still costing them money (even if only a small amount).

  • gav082 #92 10 months ago

    Why oh why am I paying for xbox live if I have to pay EA as well?

  • FireMonkey #93 10 months ago

    @ShovelyJoe - " it is definitely the sheepish mentality of people apathetically accepting this nonsense that disturbs me"

    tbh, I think it is more sheepish and disturbing that people join the unthinking flocks in moaning about the online pass.

    It is business and they are here to make money. Yes, I'd prefer it if everything was free but that is not how things work. Games companies need money to survive and to make better games and if this pass will help them towards that goal then I will happily except it.

  • JensonJet #94 10 months ago

    Totally agree with Pinky Floyd on this "...second hand players keep up the numbers and [keep] the community alive".

    I will never support a game with an online pass. All the big players in the gaming market got to where they are today without the online pass. The industry never needed it before and doesn't need it today. It's pure unadulterated greed. It's unheard of in any other market because no other market has such a gullible, immature and obsessed bunch of fans that they would put up with this kind of behavour.

    I have never seen so many people support it than here. Absolutely unbelievable.

    If the developers aren't making enough money from their game they should do the honest thing and charge more. But we all know why they don't... it would kill their game dead in a second. So they cry about how they're going out of business and need the online pass, and clearly some pretty gullible people believe this and support them.

  • greentango #95 10 months ago

    Makes sense what dice are saying and fully understandable to charge for online services when its put like that. been a PC gamer i guess its always been like this for years for me anyways.

  • FortysixterUK #96 10 months ago

    Fair enough, as long as I don't have to pay out to go online for my brand new copy I don't mind.

    If I were buying this second hand, it would be a croc 'o shite idea.

    I seem to remember when I was testing at EA, they were updating their servers during the BF2 and BF2142 test periods with excel spreadhseets that took seconds to edit.
    When I read the list/spreadsheet it was just a long tab delimited line for each player on the server, that could be easily edited to add stats or change the player name in seconds, then it was uploaded to the server.
    I must have only have been seeing half the pictue of the process I suppose, but I do seem to remember being told to log out, they would edit something on the list, upload it and then say , "log in".

    Seems like a way of grabbing more cash out of the market if you ask me. Not that I mind, I won't be buying it second hand.

  • ShovelyJoe #97 10 months ago

    @Firemonkey - I guess you didn't take the time to read the arguments as to why there is no need for the consumer to pay more if they buy a 2nd hand copy which are quite compelling:

    1. Console is basically p2p anyway so the argument for server space is limited to stats which should be a cost they absorb as other games do.
    2. In the same vein of thought, if I bought a DVD or CD second hand should I be expected to pay to watch or see it all?
    3. Companies already benefit from my xbox live subscription so I don't see why I should have to pay twice.
    4. Their beef is not with me but with the retailers who make so much money from 2nd hand games - take it up with them.
    5. How come suddenly this service, which has been free for many years, suddenly costs them so much more? This didn't become a cost over night did it?
    6. People that buy the game 2nd hand can still provide a source of revenue through DLC etc so it isn't dead money at all - quite the opposite.
    7. How is it that 40 quid used to cover these costs but now it doesn't?
    8. Why would someone pay for this service when, as experience has proved, it is a shoddy one at best?
    9. MW2 sold 12 million copies x 40 = half a billion (might even be more than that). I think if BF3 comes close to that it will cover the cost of some server space in all honesty - don't you?
    10. They have made it perfectly clear that the reason they are doing this is not because there is an actual massive cost associated with the second hand market but because they are unable to take a slice of the 2nd hand market.

    Dude - they are money grabbing bastards...how can you not see that?

  • LittleRiver #98 10 months ago

    I have no problem with the concept that server hosted (as oppose to p2p) games require the used market player to contribute.

    I do however have a problem when publishers pretend they are giving you something as a "free" bonus to justify their online tariff i.e BF:BC2 had "free" game modes on existing maps.

    *The genuinely free maps came much later as an incentive to start playing again and encourage buying the Vietnam ad-on.

  • geeza2020 #99 10 months ago

    Yeah poor EA and DICE, desperately need to re-coup some of their lost millions. Hang on, millions? So they're already stinking rich and this is just an excercise in gouging more money out of gullible sheep who have some deluded sense of comaradery with their favourite game in the BF vs CoD deathmatch? Yes, they are a business trying to make money, but that does not give them the right to charge people for shit that used to be free, and nobody ever gave a crap about before. Its just greed, plain and simple, satans cock sucking greed. BUT this wont effect me, as I buy my games new, but second hand customers should not be punished for being poorer.

  • RedSparrows #100 10 months ago

    The BFBC2 free DLC was shit for the most part.

  • IIJAZMANII #101 10 months ago

    cant stand online passes! just a bogus way of making more money, and only 1 profile can use it so if my bro wants to play online he needs to buy a pass aswell. BURN IN HELL ONLINE PASSES!!

  • FooAtari #102 10 months ago

    @FireMonkey

    It is business and they are here to make money. Yes, I'd prefer it if everything was free but that is not how things work. Games companies need money to survive and to make better games and if this pass will help them towards that goal then I will happily except it.

    Yeah cause EA and DICE are one of the many struggling developers in the industry with all the millions they make from BF.

    Your money would be better spent buying some of the great games that get lost under the marketing juggernaught of the big publishers.

  • Chrasomatic #103 10 months ago

    Given that Battlefield has dedicated servers on consoles this is pretty fair - if they were peer to peer though it would be a different story.

  • superstu1337 #104 10 months ago

    It actually doesn't make sense.

    1 Player Minus 1 Player Plus A New Player Still = 1 Player...

  • TheEarlOfZinger #105 10 months ago

    Boycott it then, cause this isn't changing any time soon - it will become the norm.

  • Madder-Max #106 10 months ago

    "However, he then added, "but I don't think it's an online pass, I think it's our own backend."

    /sniggerlol

    Online arse!
    Edited by Madder-Max at 02/08/11 @ 12:43

  • Matfink #107 10 months ago

    "Likely", "Probably", "I think", "Hopefully"...
    Testing the water much?

  • FireMonkey #108 10 months ago

    @ShovelyJoe
    1. "Console is basically p2p anyway"
    It's dedicated on console too I believe - [link url=http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/7413794.page
    ]http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/7...[/link]

    2. "if I bought a DVD or CD second hand should I be expected to pay to watch or see it all"
    Yes, but you are not accessing the film / music companies servers to listen to watch them

    3. "Companies already benefit from my xbox live subscription so I don't see why I should have to pay twice."
    MS is NOT EA. Xbox live subs go to MS.

    4. "Their beef is not with me but with the retailers who make so much money from 2nd hand games - take it up with them."
    It is you who buys the second hand games from the 2nd hand retailers. If you didn't they wouldn't sell them. Buy hitting you with this, the retails 'should' drop the price and so it is hitting them.

    5. "How come suddenly this service, which has been free for many years, suddenly costs them so much more? This didn't become a cost over night did it?"
    It doesn't cost them much more. Years ago, you would be lucky to get a decent multi-player game in with the single. Now you get both and you are paying the same amount? Personally I wonder more why we can't buy just the multi-player or single player.

    6. "People that buy the game 2nd hand can still provide a source of revenue through DLC etc so it isn't dead money at all - quite the opposite."
    As long as they buy it and anyway I thought that was evil too? When ever anyone mentions paid for maps, weapons, etc everyone moans that they should be free as it splits the community and gives some an unfair advantage. You can't have both!

    7. "How is it that 40 quid used to cover these costs but now it doesn't?"
    Games have got much bigger than they used to and they should have actually raised in price but they haven't. Think of it this way, rather than everyone paying more for the games, the people who pay a tiny little extra when buying the pass (they are still paying less than if they bought the game new) are helping to keep the cost for the rest of us down.

    8. "Why would someone pay for this service when, as experience has proved, it is a shoddy one at best?"
    If it's shoddy don't buy it? Why would anyone want to play on this service if it is that shoddy?

    9. "MW2 sold 12 million copies x 40 = half a billion (might even be more than that). I think if BF3 comes close to that it will cover the cost of some server space in all honesty - don't you?"
    Yes. So?

    10. "They have made it perfectly clear that the reason they are doing this is not because there is an actual massive cost associated with the second hand market but because they are unable to take a slice of the 2nd hand market."
    Fair play to them. If they can think of a way to make more money then that is good business.

    "Dude - they are money grabbing bastards...how can you not see that?"
    That is their job. They are a business not a charity.

    You should still be able to buy a second hand game and an online pass for the same price you could buy a game before the pass system was introduced so what is the problem? This actually makes it better if you are a second hand buyer who does NOT want online as you get the game even cheaper than before.
    Edited by FireMonkey at 02/08/11 @ 13:21

  • geeza2020 #109 10 months ago

    9. "MW2 sold 12 million copies x 40 = half a billion (might even be more than that). I think if BF3 comes close to that it will cover the cost of some server space in all honesty - don't you?"
    Yes. So?

    Soooo maybe this is actually just money gouging and not some essential server upkeep charge they are making it out to be? Do pay attention.

  • FireMonkey #110 10 months ago

    @gezza2020 - "Soooo maybe this is actually just money gouging and not some essential server upkeep charge they are making it out to be? Do pay attention."

    When have you ever paid for exact cost for a service? You always pay extra so they can make an additional profit from it.

    Do you really think it costs your insurance or mortgage companies £25 to add you to their databases? That's what a lot of them charge in admin charges even if you sign up on-line and have it all fully automated.

  • metalangel #111 10 months ago

    @FireMonkey
    1. "It's dedicated on console too I believe - http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/7... "

    Link is broken. It's not going to be like BF1943 where you needed a minimum number of people to even get a 'private' game, and System Link was gone, is it?

    2. "Yes, but you are not accessing the film / music companies servers to listen to watch them"
    EA decided they wanted you to have to access their servers first, that's THEIR decision. There is no reason why we should have to pay for that decision.

    3. "MS is NOT EA. Xbox live subs go to MS."
    From a consumer's point of view, still not my fucking problem. Up until recently nobody except EA felt the need to charge extra, they always think their shitty products are somehow the exception and deserve special treatment compared to everyone else.

    4. "It is you who buys the second hand games from the 2nd hand retailers. If you didn't they wouldn't sell them. Buy hitting you with this, the retails 'should' drop the price and so it is hitting them. "
    You scratched the paint on my car. So, I'm going to kick your son in the throat.
    or:
    Tesco keep selling our 8 cans of cola as two packs for £5 as opposed to our RRP of £5 each. So we're going to poison one in 16 cans.

    5. "It doesn't cost them much more."
    That's that.

    6. "As long as they buy it and anyway I thought that was evil too? When ever anyone mentions paid for maps, weapons, etc everyone moans that they should be free as it splits the community and gives some an unfair advantage. You can't have both!"
    Absolutely it does. While it doesn't change the fact that some dummies will still buy lots of DLC for a second-hand game, you're right.

    7. "Games have got much bigger than they used to and they should have actually raised in price but they haven't. Think of it this way, rather than everyone paying more for the games, the people who pay a tiny little extra when buying the pass (they are still paying less than if they bought the game new) are helping to keep the cost for the rest of us down. "
    But how does one copy of the game (with new owner) minus one new owner plus one used own = more costs than one copy of the game (with new owner) in terms of cost "running servers"?

    8. "If it's shoddy don't buy it? Why would anyone want to play on this service if it is that shoddy?"
    You tell me. We don't have a choice but to play on their service, now, and you're the one trying to defend them.

    9. "Yes. So?"
    So the above equation: one copy of the game can only ever be occupying one slot on the server at a time no matter how many people it gets passed between. Activision haven't gone bankrupt 'allowing' this.

    10. "Fair play to them. If they can think of a way to make more money then that is good business."
    If they can find a way to piss a lot of people off and generate lots of bad publicity because of their greed, that's very bad business. It really is charging for what you once got for free with no legitimate justification.

    "That is their job. They are a business not a charity."
    I wish I'd seen this before I started writing this response, as it renders your whole tedious fanboy defense null. Fuck off. They don't give two shits about how you (or I) feel, though they're glad you'll still keep putting money into their accounts unlike me.

  • Harmonica #112 10 months ago

    Too right. "They're a business not a charity."

    Haha! They're fucking game designers, if they had any integrity we could call them artists. Where's the law written that artists have to make millions? This is a phony argument. Making games and having people play them and getting their people paid should be enough.

  • FireMonkey #113 10 months ago

    @Metalangel - "I wish I'd seen this before I started writing this response, as it renders your whole tedious fanboy defense null. Fuck off."

    Nice, being told to fuck off for voicing an opinion. Why so aggressive? If you don't want to read other peoples opinions then don't read the comments.

    I am not a fanboy. I work in the industry and have done for quite a few years now and know how hard it is to make a living doing this. I have seen many friends made redundant over the years and more so recently, so maybe I see things slightly differently to some on this forum, but I thought it was valid to air the other viewpoint.

    If you really don't like the online pass don't buy it, the solution is simple really just stop buying the games that use it. The thing is I reckon most that complain about it will still buy these games, so how is EA going to learn not to do it?

  • metalangel #114 10 months ago

    @Firemonkey: You should know better, you've certainly posted on here enough to know that 'they're a business, not a charity' is not an argument in the face of the numerous arguments against this business practice being anything but greed. So fuck off with that, if that's what you're going to fall back on, because you know it's not the truth. I'm sick of hearing it being used to defend this 'we're going to try and get away with it because we can' attitude by EA and the other big publishers.

    I would love to see a way to stop EA doing this, the problem is there's too many fanboys, corporate apologists and complete cretins who will happily sign their firstborn children away in the face of ever-restrictive DRM and withdrawal of their rights and allowing this slow but sure slide.

  • contranova #115 9 months ago

    what happens when they stop making the game and/or stop support