Battlefield 3 online pass confirmed

By Fred Dutton Published 14 October, 2011

Surprise surprise.

If you buy a used copy of Battlefield 3, you'll need to purchase an online pass to access the game's multiplayer features.

The confirmation comes from the Twitter feed DICE designer lan Kertz (via MP1st) who was asked by a follower, "do you need to buy a new battlefield 3 to play xbox live?"

His response? "You can also purchase an online pass for a used copy."

When asked by another follower to justify the system, Kertz replied, "Because servers cost money, and used games don't make developers any money."

The inclusion of an online pass was strongly hinted at by the game's executive producer Patrick Bach earlier this year.

"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," he explained.

"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."

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 (119) Latest comment 2 months ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • SaintDaveUK #1 4 months ago

    That's fair enough.

  • Samirnasirov #2 4 months ago

    haha nice tagline

  • sheldipez #3 4 months ago

    Perfectly understandable and reasonable but RE:

    "we don't get a single dime from a used game, but we still need to create server space and everything for you."

    I'd just like point out that they're not technically creating more and more space as the obviously the guy that used to own the game no longer plays thus no longer needs any "space" anywhere.

  • ozzzy189 #4 4 months ago

    But the person who sold it no longer plays, and what about us dads who buy it? Do our lads have to pay too? Hardly fair is it?

  • themanfromdelmonte #5 4 months ago

    Hope this takes off. Once this becomes the norm and people become aware, shops selling pre-pubed will have to factor this into their selling price, so the customer won't pay more. It'll mean devs can claw back some money from 2nd hand sales.

  • gandhimaster #6 4 months ago

    to be fair sheldipez - if you traded in a game, went back to it afterwards and all your stuff was gone you'd be a bit mad.

    EA can't delete your data in case you come back to it......

  • -cerberus- #7 4 months ago

    Grease up your arses and grab your ankles, ladies.
    Edited by 2 at 14/10/11 @ 21:06

  • Fiinyx #8 4 months ago

    @sheldipez: And how do EA/DICE know that person is no longer playing and their account can be deleted (considering there's no cd-keys!)? That and what gandhimaster said I suppose. :)

  • Daddy-Doom-Bar #9 4 months ago

    It's fair enough for a huge MP game like this. It's single player games having online codes that fucks me off. Yes, I'm looking at you, Batman.

  • Gastrian #10 4 months ago

    @Sheldipez

    And how do you sort out those that have sold their game from those that just don't play anymore? Do you just delete someone's profile, high scores, etc just because you believe they may have sold the game? Its still going to be multiple records from a single game purchase.

  • xuiton #11 4 months ago

    why can't these fucking retard publishers just cut a deal with the retailers and demand that they get a cut from second hand copies, that way, everybody wins.

  • H_D_Swagger #12 4 months ago

    Just another way for game companies to squeeze more money out of people. If you believe the justification they give you're gullible. These online passes are supposedly to give game companies money from second hand sales, but you can be sure it won't lead to the cost of new release games coming down by a proportional amount. None of this really bothers me much. What I do find annoying is how enthusiastic some gamers seem to be about online passes judging from comments online. Some of you seem to want to give away more of your money.

  • Triggerhappytel #13 4 months ago

    Is this even newsworthy? All EA games have had online passes or equivalents for about 18 months now.

  • Master09 #14 4 months ago

    Hey Eurogamer, hope you print the article about Gamestop giving free online passes for Batman Arkham City used copy buyers.



  • bobdebob #15 4 months ago

    @master09
    How can they get used copies that quickly?



  • SheffAl #16 4 months ago

    Lol this becoming a common occurance now.

  • Gurrah #17 4 months ago

    Nobody wants you to fucking provide server space!!! Give us a proper game and server browser and let the community sort out the rest... it's not as hard as you are making it out to be.

  • Davemanz #18 4 months ago

    How people can still blame publishers and not used game shops for this stuff is still astounding.

    If used game stores would sell used games at a reasonable price, not just 5% off, this wouldn't be an issue. As it is used game stores make a ludicrous markup that really hurts developers and publishers. You want to see innovation in the industry? Support good games with NEW purchases, not used ones. The idea here isn't to punish people from buying used, per se, it's to force used game shops to lower their prices to something more reasonable, so the cost will be the same to gamers. Used game stores are goddamn cunts and everyone knows it, and somehow everyone gets mad when publishers try to take them on rather than asking the stores to stop ripping everyone off.

    Thanks in advance for the negs.

  • Dizzy #19 4 months ago

    "Because servers cost money, and used games don't make developers any money."

    That bullshit excuse again. Surely the original owner is NOT stressing your server anymore.

    "still need to create server space and everything for you"

    Oh I am sure those 5MB on the server HDD will really freak you out.

  • agparrot #20 4 months ago

    So soon I won't have to pay as much Gold Live subscription presumably, as that element of playing with other people is all being taken on by the publishers now?

  • makeamazing #21 4 months ago

    why can't these fucking retard publishers just cut a deal with the retailers and demand that they get a cut from second hand copies, that way, everybody wins.

    Because there is no way retailers would do it on the whole, because they make way too much money from it... have you not walked into game recently, 2/3rds of the store is covered in second hand stock, its like walking to a car boot sale. They also probably don't care about online codes, as they just put a sticker on the box saying it may not have all features... the retailers don't really care too much.

    Just another way for game companies to squeeze more money out of people. If you believe the justification they give you're gullible. These online passes are supposedly to give game companies money from second hand sales, but you can be sure it won't lead to the cost of new release games coming down by a proportional amount. None of this really bothers me much. What I do find annoying is how enthusiastic some gamers seem to be about online passes judging from comments online. Some of you seem to want to give away more of your money.

    Yeah because games companies are all making lots of money... not. Secondly if you buy the game new, you are not giving any extra money away, this is meant to prevent second hand sales whereby the games companies get no money... now i don't think most people would care at someone selling a copy on ebay or at a car boot, but looking at my first point... when shops have more 2nd hand stock than new... and are reselling the same second hand stock 6 or 7 times, do you blame games companies?

  • napalm68 #22 4 months ago

    Plus 100 Gurrah - I couldn't agree more.

  • chessboxer #23 4 months ago

    @ xuiton

    Do you honestly think that retailers would agree to give away pure profit when they don't have to? They buy used games cheap and sell them Ł2 pounds cheaper than a new copy putting lots of ŁŁŁ in the pockets of the owners/shareholders. I and many others may not agree with it, but it's not illegal and as gaming is a luxury, there is unlikely to be any form of public backlash which would force them to make such an agreement with publishers.

  • SavageEvil #24 4 months ago

    I swear some people are a bit thick in the head, buy the game new and you pay the same normal price. Buy it used and have to pay to play online, what is wrong with that? Why should you get your game for cheap and get the same free play as someone who paid full price? Pub can't force used game sellers to give them money off used game sales and places like Gamestop make a killing off used games which are barely cheaper than brand new. Why do you think pubs put this in place? Greedy, perhaps, but Gamestop is just as greedy, even more so. They sell you a used game 5-10 dollars less, making money off something they didn't create and the original creators don't get anything from the re sale of the item which when you play online uses their resources. Get you head straight, it's about dollars and cents here, buy new or pay to play later...choice is yours.

  • oceanmotion #25 4 months ago

    That reason from DICE is laughable. Stick to the second hand sales taking your profit reasoning.

    The way things are going your going to get codes for the whole game, including single player games. Batman has just taken that route partly with the Catwomen missions.

    I think publishers should go all out with a code to unlock the whole game and see what happens. You will kill second hand sales but at the same time people will wait for games to get a lot cheaper. I could live with that.

    Publishers should also start doing trade ins themselves. Give gamers future discounts when they return the game to you.


    Edited by 1 at 14/10/11 @ 22:10

  • sajtion #26 4 months ago

    haha all the more reasons to get modern warfare 3

  • StuDevo #27 4 months ago

    So new copies and online pass pays for server, so why do M$ still want Ł40 a year from me to play my 360 online?

  • H_D_Swagger #28 4 months ago

    @ makeamazing

    "Yeah because games companies are all making lots of money... not. Secondly if you buy the game new, you are not giving any extra money away, this is meant to prevent second hand sales whereby the games companies get no money... now i don't think most people would care at someone selling a copy on ebay or at a car boot, but looking at my first point... when shops have more 2nd hand stock than new... and are reselling the same second hand stock 6 or 7 times, do you blame games companies?"

    If game companies aren't making money that's not my problem. Plenty of them are making a lot of money.
    Personally I'm grateful for second hand sales, it makes games cheaper for me, if game companies are losing out I don't really care to be honest. If I'm looking forward to a game I buy it new.
    What I don't get is why you want to defend online passes? The game companies can look after themselves, they don't need people apologising for them throwing on extra charges.

  • FireMonkey #29 4 months ago

    "I'd just like point out that they're not technically creating more and more space as the obviously the guy that used to own the game no longer plays thus no longer needs any "space" anywhere."

    Umm.. wrong. The old players stats ard profiles are all still stored on the server. They don't know the old player won't be back as they don't know they sold the game. If they deleted profiles of everyone who stopped playing they'd really piss of the ones who wanted to come back.

    Imagine 20,000 copies of the game are sold second hand over the lifetime of the game (I am guessing it would be much more with the amount the shops push second hand recently) then that is 10,000 extra gamer profiles and stats that need to be stored and haven't paid a thing towards that storage. Multiply that by 5 (which I think I read was the estimated number of times a second hand game gets resold) then that is 100,000 gamer profiles and stats. I'm unsure of how much space the data would take up, but that is a long way from no space.

    Edit - Negs? Don't be shy explain!
    Edited by 1 at 14/10/11 @ 22:51

  • FireMonkey #30 4 months ago

    @StuDevo & @agparrot - "So soon I won't have to pay as much Gold Live subscription presumably, as that element of playing with other people is all being taken on by the publishers now?"

    So MS should charge less for there service because EA are charging something extra? How much less should they charge? Ł10 maybe?
    By that logic, Sony should also charge Ł10 less and as PSN is free, Sony should be paying you to play EA games.

    No, that money is for MS to run XBox Live and has nothing to do with EA and the money EA is charging is for them and nothing to do with MS.

    @H_D_Swagger - "What I don't get is why you want to defend online passes? The game companies can look after themselves"
    ...and that is what they are doing with the pass. Looking after themselves.

    Edit - I do love EG's commentors sometimes. Neg a comment but don't post any argument against the comment as they know they don't have one.
    Edited by 3 at 14/10/11 @ 22:53

  • TheVoice #31 4 months ago

    Considering how cheap games are these days just weeks/months after release, I can't see any compelling reason to bother with pre-owned games anyway. I'd rather some of my money went to the people who made it.

    If it means they'll continue to support the game after launch with maps etc as they did with BC2, then it's fully justifiable anyway. Of course, if that fails to be the case then it's a bit of a different story, but doesn't bother me personally either way, I'll be buying the game new regardless.

  • pasota #32 4 months ago

    Nonsense, the previous owner is not playing and the cost of the space required by his profile must be ridiculous.

  • bobdebob #33 4 months ago

    If its a good game then there won't be many 2ndhand ones floating around, you people make it as though the 2nd games appear out of nowhere.

    But no matter, if this continues only the small companies are going to suffer since people are only going to buy big name games that they know are going to be worth their money since the trade-in prices are going to suffer.

  • StuDevo #34 4 months ago

    @FireMonkey
    "So MS should charge less for there service because EA are charging something extra? .... No, that money is for MS to run XBox Live and has nothing to do with EA and the money EA is charging is for them and nothing to do with MS.."

    But if EA charging for server usage what does gold subscription pay for? A storefront to pay for items? The subscription is paying for nothing i dont get free on my ps3. Only a slightly better online UI which is just part of the console OS and doesn't need any maintenance. Also just to note I am an owner of both consoles
    Edited by 1 at 14/10/11 @ 22:58

  • svenjl #35 4 months ago

    Firstly, like others, I don't really mind this practice when it comes to second hand games and multiplayer. I do a lot of trading and used games buying, but by years end will also have purchased 8 games new. I'm a bit uneasy that it will spread to singleplayer, and I was appalled (or blazing mad!) re Batman. While online passes are not new, it might not be long before this practice is expanded in more punitive ways. It's pretty lame for Dice or EA to cry poor, they'll do just fine out of this game. Maybe if there was more transparency from publishers and retailers regarding cost and margins, gamers would be in a position to understand these financial issues. Retailers are, as with devs and publishers, entirely justified in seeking a profit and used games are the vehicle for this. I don't think EA is going to do much more than place the cost at consumers feet in effect, but long term it might provoke some more honest answers from publishers and retailers.

  • FireMonkey #36 4 months ago

    @StuDevo - "But if EA charging for server usage what does gold subscription pay for?"

    Well not server usage.
    Gold subscription pays for what it always has to MS and has nothing to do with the publisher.

    EA do not even use MS's servers. They fought them for ages to be allowed to run all their games on their own servers.

    On a side note, I have never liked the fact MS charge for Gold, but I do feel the total service it offers (if you use it all) is better than Sony's. I don't think it is worth as much as they charge though which is why I just stick to PC for online.
    Edited by 2 at 14/10/11 @ 23:11

  • SheffAl #37 4 months ago

    Should publishers make better games that gamers want to buy new?
    Would a pre-owned buyer buy the game new if denied the pre-owned purchase?
    How far will publishers take this?

  • RedSparrows #38 4 months ago

    but but but if I get to shoot at people with realistically modelled guns it's all ok! Especially if the AUG has exactly the right 'clicking' noise when reloaded.

    Or something.

  • Eraysor #39 4 months ago

    Can't believe people think this is a good idea. I find it pretty disgusting to be honest. Why should I be punished for buying a new game and not being able to trade it in for full value? Entering a code should not simply erase Ł8 from the resale value of your game instantly.

  • FireMonkey #40 4 months ago

    @SheffAl - "Should publishers make better games that gamers want to buy new?"

    No matter how good the game is or how cheap it is new, if stores offer money for them then people will sell them and if the stores offer second hand cheaper then the new then people will buy them.

    That's the way it is and there is nothing wrong with that. Just as there is nothing wrong with the publisher controlling what they sell. It's their choice and if people don't like it then they should show that by not buying new.
    Edited by 1 at 14/10/11 @ 23:17

  • FireMonkey #41 4 months ago

    @Eraysor - "Entering a code should not simply erase Ł8 from the resale value of your game instantly."

    People seem to like using the real crap car comparison when talking about the second hand market, so I'm going to use it here.
    Driving a car of a showroom forecourt should not simply erase Ł1000s from the retail value of a car. But it does.

    Just saw how much I posted tonight. Way too much for something that is really a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. I'm gonna quit and get some sleep.
    Edited by 1 at 14/10/11 @ 23:23

  • darth_paul #42 4 months ago

    agree to some extent... but, as said by a lot of people, the person that sold the game is not playing it online anymore, so no, EA is not having to create +1 playing slot ...
    at least they should be honest about it, and say that they're doing it only to combat 2nd hand sales

  • ZouZouRas #43 4 months ago

    So when you buy a second hand car you will need to pay for an online pass in order to unlock the 5th gear or when you sell your tv the person who will buy it needs to purchase an online pass in order to unlock color and resolutions above 480p. These examples are acceptable from you because "companies lose money from 2nd hand sales".

    Apple is thinking about an iphone without a SIM card where the phone number is stored at the phone. It will not be user replaceable.

    Don't you see where everything is going?

    And the irony is that capitalism said that communism is evil because it is against property.
    Edited by 2 at 15/10/11 @ 00:09

  • coolbritannia #44 4 months ago

    I agree with the sentiment that these online passes are now making the argument for Live very weak. The rising costs are putting me off gaming.

  • makeamazing #45 4 months ago

    If game companies aren't making money that's not my problem. Plenty of them are making a lot of money.

    See this is what gets on my nerves, you want your games and you want to save money, you don't care if companies make money or not (and many good games have sold badly which has nothing to do with the quality of the game)... but you still want your expensive hight quality games i'd wager.. you want your cake and eat it... All you want to do is save a few bucks ... when if you really had any sense you could probably just wait a little bit and wait for the game to go down in price...and guess what developers would still get some cash...win win.

    I mean I go into Game and i see shelf after shelf of 2nd hand games with a few pounds off... are you really that cheap to save Ł2 on a game...when you could just wait another week or two and just order it cheaper online?

    Seriously perhaps playing games isn't for you, because if there were more people like you, there wouldn't be anybody making money to actually make games.. If it wasn't for the larger proportion of people buying new, you wouldn't have anything to play in the first place.

    Oh to note i don't have a problem with 2nd hand games sales, what i have a problem with is whiney people complaining they aren't getting something that people who pay brand new for the game are (and then making the stupid argument that they won't be buying a game from that company again, which doesn't actually make them money when you buy second hand).

    Anybody who enjoys games and wants to see it continue.. generally want to support games companies.. because you know we enjoy games and want good companies to continue to make more good games. When i say people supporting, this can be the guy who buys it day one to the guy that buys it six months later half the price... doesn't matter, because at least the developers see some of it.

    Anyway the great thing is this will certainly be the norm now, so get used to it or don't buy games :)

    Ps - And to use the stupid car analogy that people like you want to keep throwing in peoples face... i just purchased a second hand car and i am disgusted to see that there are miles on the clock... how bad is that, i paid my money to some guy and expected to get at least the same quality and car that someone who purchased straight from the manufacturer got.

  • mattk84 #46 4 months ago

    "I agree with the sentiment that these online passes are now making the argument for Live very weak. The rising costs are putting me off gaming."

    ...but you're not paying any extra for the BF3 pass?

  • Colvin #47 4 months ago

    Why complain about the online pass? You get it with a sealed copy. It's not like you have to buy it.

    I was in HMV the other day and some random fella picked up a used FIFA 12 to save himself less than 3 quid. People like that caused this. The sad thing is that he could have ordered the game for a few quid less than that new if he used the internet.

  • napalm68 #48 4 months ago

    I wonder how come over the millennia books have been about, we've never heard this crap from authors? I mean do you hearing them bitching about libraries? Or about closing down second hand bookstores? Fark, these greedy prick game publishers make me sick. And I'll never go digital only on games, until I'm literally forced.

    The other thing about digital games is the prices. They are no better than physical media, and they never drop in price. Eg, 6 months after release I can buy a physical game from the UK for about 18 pounds, down from a release price of 40 or so. Online though, they stay the same, with occasional little specials like they are doing some god damn favour.

  • Number1Laing #49 4 months ago

    When asked by another follower to justify the system, Kertz replied, "Because servers cost money, and used games don't make developers any money."

    Kertz is a liar.

  • drjuggler #50 4 months ago

    How is this different than selling the same copy of the game twice? Do they give refunds to people who stop playing multiplayer? It could almost be defensible if the game offered LAN support and you had other multiplayer options but it seems clear that this is the next step to charging a full-blown subscription.

  • tipaklong #51 4 months ago

    I've never posted on a games site anywhere before, but I felt compelled to respond to this. So the companies that produce and publish games have been complaining that they are losing sales due to the secondhand business, and they apparently feel that they are entitled to compensation every time a game sold changes hands. Why? What is so special about games? Should I mail Honda a check for their fair share of the proceeds after I sell my car? Nope, because Honda has already made their money. If I buy a taco from Taco Bell, and then decide to sell it to my friend because he's really hungry, should I stroll into the restaurant, ask for the manager and hand him $0.69? Of course not. Once I purchase something, whether it's a car, a taco or a game, it is my property and I should be able to do with it as I please. Is this not obvious? Is this not intuitive?

  • Fergdog #52 4 months ago

    If it was a single player only game I'd 100% agree with you tipaklong, but with multiplayer games its a lil fuzzier tho im still not a fan of it.

  • DirectAim #53 4 months ago

    Lame, they are going to make 100million, if not more, hosting 10x more servers than would EVER be required wudn't cost more than 200k for three years I reckon

  • Gastrian #54 4 months ago

    @Tipaklong

    Here's the flaws in your argument.

    A car suffers from wear and tear everytime you use it and this shortens the life span of a car, you get less life out a second hand car than you do a first hand car, you get less warranty on a second hand car, you don't get the 1st year tax rate for the vehicle, you get a smaller period of time before having to MOT your vehicle. A second hand car loses "content" over a brand new car and if you wanted some of that "content" back such as an extended warranty you'd have to pay extra for it. For all extents and purposes Honda's extra warranty istheir online pass.

    A taco is a consumable item and can't be reused. A second hand taco is realistically your excrement. If you didn't touch your taco you are selling it to your friend unused, therefore its not second hand. If you take a bite out of it before you sell it to your friend then your friend is paying less and getting less. Comparatively the situation is like you having a bite of your taco, selling it to your friend at a discount and then your friend complaining that they are not getting a full taco.

    Also a game is not your property, the physical disc, box, instructions manual and any free physical gifts with the game become your property but the content on the disc always has been and always will be the property of the publisher. Whether that's morally right or wrong is up for debate but never hold the misguided notion your "own" the game, you bought a physical medium and a licence to use it.

  • TAPNGO #55 4 months ago

    Kertz replied, "Because servers cost money, and used games don't make developers any money.
    it doesn't lose developers money either.

  • dbeamish #56 4 months ago

    the costs of this stuff including hosting the servers and bandwidth will be in the original business case and budget. So frankly this is complete bullshit. Your games cost ~50 quid don't they? That is plenty, especially when you're talking about selling 5 million of them in about 2 weeks.
    And then you have virtualisation, so its not like you have or need a pool of dedicated servers any more. So get back in your hole and pull over your duvet made from money. Worse than hitler.

  • Geordiemp #57 4 months ago

    Now if EA used that money to put in a server in each major game buying country (like one in the UK), and we had online games where everyone had a good connection, low ping, no lag...well it might be wort the money.

    Having a crappy server in China that lags and is almost unplayable sometimes, whats the f...g point ?

    At the moment the best UK online games are p2p, yes thats COD, or cybertron, or UC2, or anything that is not EA. Its not the games, not the pubs, its the EA servers that ruin the online. Gears 3 - lagfest, wish some of these games used different publisher.

    I dont even mind paying for online if its a good service.

    And i have not forgotten switching off the online play for Lord rings conquest and others EA, so I avoid you like the plague.
    Edited by 1 at 15/10/11 @ 10:44

  • LittleRiver #58 4 months ago

    I have said it on many occasions: An online fee is unacceptable for P2P. For hosted servers though is fully justified that used game owners should contribute.

  • sjmlondon #59 4 months ago

    I bet the online pass for Battlefield 3 doesn't cover a load of free DLC maps like it did for BFBC2.

  • sajtion #60 4 months ago

    screw online gaming anyway half the games can't even hold my interest for two weeks. stop buying online passes and we're gonna win

  • H_D_Swagger #61 4 months ago

    @ makeamazing

    You seem to be confusing my post with someone else's. I do buy games on release if I'm looking forward to them. I also didn't make the car analogy.

    Compare second hand games sales to what's happened to the music industry in terms of illegal downloading. Record companies are losing far more money from illegal downloading than game developers and publishers are losing from second hand sales of games. However, music fans don't think it's a good thing when record companies come up with other ways to get more money out of them (higher ticket prices, etc.), they recognise that if a record company handles their business well they'll still make money despite illegal downloading. Some gamers such as yourself however think it's a good thing when we're squeezed for extra money, despite the fact that successful games companies are doing very well for themselves already. They don't need more of our money and the excuses they provide to try to cover their blatant opportunism are laughable.

    You also point out that the price of new games comes down a while after release. If the second hand market didn't exist there wouldn't be the same downward pressure on the price of new games. In the long term game companies are trying to get rid of the second hand market, that would be very bad for the consumer.

  • Porko_Rossi #62 4 months ago

    Pay for xbox live, pay for playing a game online... The big squeeze ay !? This reminds me of south park taking the piss out of Metallica not able to afford a giant gold swimming pool with sharks.

  • Iain #63 4 months ago

    Ah yes, once again the debate about the evil second hand market. And yet again completely ignoring the fact that a certain percentage of NEW games will be bought by trading in old ones. That being said, I'm not against online passes at all (and that coming from someone who works at an independent shop that sells used games), but I'm tired of how biased the industry is against second hand games.

    Do they earn any money from second hand sales? No. But do they provide any service to the shop (such as PriceProtection) to the shops selling used games? No. Also, used games are a great way to get into a franchise. We have several customers who got hooked on a certain series after playing maybe one game used and buying the next installment new!

  • themanfromdelmonte #64 4 months ago

    "I wonder how come over the millennia books have been about, we've never heard this crap from authors? I mean do you hearing them bitching about libraries? Or about closing down second hand bookstores? Fark, these greedy prick game publishers make me sick. And I'll never go digital only on games, until I'm literally forced. "

    Firstly, books haven't been around for millenia, the printing press is less than 600 years old, before that all copies were typically hand written. Books typically take 1 person to write, so only one person to financially support and have a significantly longer shelf life.

    "I've never posted on a games site anywhere before, but I felt compelled to respond to this. So the companies that produce and publish games have been complaining that they are losing sales due to the secondhand business, and they apparently feel that they are entitled to compensation every time a game sold changes hands. Why? What is so special about games? Should I mail Honda a check for their fair share of the proceeds after I sell my car? Nope, because Honda has already made their money. If I buy a taco from Taco Bell, and then decide to sell it to my friend because he's really hungry, should I stroll into the restaurant, ask for the manager and hand him $0.69? Of course not. Once I purchase something, whether it's a car, a taco or a game, it is my property and I should be able to do with it as I please. Is this not obvious? Is this not intuitive? "

    Actually most car manufacturers make the lion's share of their profits from manufacturing spares and later licensing the manufacture of spares to 3rd party manufacturers. So Honda continue to make money from whoever you sell your car to.
    Edited by 1 at 15/10/11 @ 12:14

  • Sir_STRESSHEaD #65 4 months ago

    You will probably find that the Online pass extends to other accounts on that same console... as i found out when i went off on one with THQ about the Homefront Online pass.

    It may also work like DLC... if you download on one console every account on that console works... then if you want to play on another console (xbox) so long as you are signed in on live you can use it in both places.

    We foud this out with COD dlc as both myself and my Wife play but don't want to purchase content twice!

    I totally agree with the online pass/pre owned game theory... but I think more thought needs to go into content shared between family members/households

  • Droogie #66 4 months ago

    Hmm, I've been against this sort of thing when considering Arkham City, but this is fair enough as server costs are server costs. I can see why (for various reasons, some more sympathetic than others) they're doing it, but it's still a shame for us on the ground level that the industry is trying to kill off the second hand market.

  • orangpelupa #67 4 months ago

    "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."

    Thats weird....

    server is created by the server providers, and funded by them, or by the user that RENT the server.

    so even if i buy second hand, i can RENT server and EA got money.

    im confused here with his statement...

  • Q22ube #68 4 months ago

    Ok let’s get this straight for anyone who didn’t quite get it (I know most do but this isn’t intended for you)

    NEW GAME -
    Ł12 - Publisher
    Ł7 - Developer
    Ł5 - Platform Royalty (a.k.a Sony / Mircosoft)
    Ł1 - Manufacture
    Ł15 Retail

    Total = Ł40 (which includes Online pass / VIP codes)


    2nd Hand Game
    Ł30 – Retailer
    Ł10 – Developer (To include Online / VIP Codes)

    Total = Ł40

    ITS THE SAME PRICE ETHER WAY FOR THE SAME CONTENT – YOUR ARE NOT BEING CHARGED “MORE”

    Just to we are clear

    Also the Ł40 you pay for MS Live has NOTHING to do with how much a game is sold for and the Ł40 you pay goes directly to MS not any publisher to Host servers - You have an issue with that then take it up with MS not the developer of the game
    Edited by 1 at 15/10/11 @ 13:16

  • Iain #69 4 months ago

    One of the things Homefront did right (IMO) was their online pass system. Play until Rank 5 without it, unlock the progression afterwards with the pass. It afforded players a chance to get their feet wet but gave them an option to opt out.

  • Vortextk #70 4 months ago

    It's EA. If you were expecting anything different at any point of time EVER, you were wrong.

  • AVisualEpiphany #71 4 months ago

    And again...
    "Yet again, only affects those who wish to save FIVE POUNDS to buy used, giving all their money to the retailers rather than the people that have spent years MAKING THE GAME...
    Neg away, I shall continue to post the exact same thing any time one of these stories shows up as I honestly do not understand why people see the need to buy pre-owned in the first place when all you save is a few pounds (Or pay even more than a NEW copy)"
    I also noticed some people seem to think they will have to buy an online pass, even if they buy new? Can people not read?

  • bobdebob #72 4 months ago

    @71
    Are you stupid? Do you only buy your games at GAME when there are other places you can get games much much cheaper new or used?
    And what about when you buy the game a fews years down the line when there are no new copies or the servers aren't online anymore?

  • rudedudejude #73 4 months ago

    Or you could just pay for your Origin account I guess...

  • agparrot #74 4 months ago

    For what it is worth, I don't have any issue with paying for the Online Pass in this case, given the eventual value I got out of BC2 from Project $10, even though I bitched about that too, at the time. I'm buying BF3 new, so I don't have to worry about specifically paying again for the Online Pass, but I'm going to reserve judgement about what value it has until I've seen how the EA servers handle the user load this time.

    My issue with paying for Live and for the Online Pass is that I *have* to pay for them both in order to play online. If I could pay for the online pass for BF3, and cancel my Gold subscription for a few months while I use EA's servers exclusively to play BF3, I'd happily do that.

    Part of the service offered by the excellent Xbox Live, though, is supposed to incorporate playing online multiplayer with other people, which I can merrily do when I turn on Borderlands or Gears 3 or a massive raft of other games that don't ask me to pay again if I've bought second hand, or borrowed somebody else's copy.

    I genuinely don't mind paying to play online, it just irks a little bit that in these special cases I have to pay once, so that I can access a service where I may need to pay again to play.

  • makeamazing #75 4 months ago

    You seem to be confusing my post with someone else's. I do buy games on release if I'm looking forward to them. I also didn't make the car analogy.

    I was just making a general point about those posts negative on the online pass... which is free if you buy the game new... no extra cost no problem, it's only if people are trying to save a few pounds and be a bit of a cheap skate who are whining about being hard done by, which are getting on my nerves.

    You also point out that the price of new games comes down a while after release. If the second hand market didn't exist there wouldn't be the same downward pressure on the price of new games.

    The downward pressure would be things such as time since its been released, how many sales its made, what other games are coming out since its release, competing products, there are many factors that depend on the sale cost of a game, to blindly think that if second hand sales weren't in place that prices wouldn't drop is wrong.

    As i said in my previous post, i don't mind 2nd hand sales, car boots, ebay... but when large corporations/retails are actually reducing the amount of new games they buy because they can just regurgitate the same 2nd hand stock over and over again, then that is a problem in my mind. Computer game stores used to be so great 15 years ago, now they are just like part exchange places... horrible seedy places.


    Edited by 1 at 15/10/11 @ 16:37

  • Gastrian #76 4 months ago

    @Dbeamish

    Two points;

    If EA were to include second hand usage in their business case and budget then that would mean the cost for the second hand market would be covered by sales from the 1st time buyers. So by your logicyou want a game for less and for other people to foot the bill.

    Second, you have no clue on how retail or the industry works so don't try to talk about business cases and how much companies have. In a Ł50 game EA will likely see less than half that. That RRP includes tax, it includes the sellers markup, it includes the distributors cost and many other costs.

  • Raptaur #77 4 months ago

    H_D_Swagger
    15/10/11 @ 11:20

    You also point out that the price of new games comes down a while after release. If the second hand market didn't exist there wouldn't be the same downward pressure on the price of new games.


    Kinda weird then how the price of XBox arcade and PSN titles reduce in prices over time, there doesn't seem to be a second hand market there?

  • BonzoBanana #78 4 months ago

    Personally I don't think its fair but I understand publishers need to increase their income and that currently only publishers that can churn out big hits can make profits. Any publisher who can't sell games in multi-million numbers seems to be struggling.

    I just want to point out that Q22ube's explanation is completely wrong and biased against pre-owned. The shop still has to buy the secondhand copy of the game of the owner.

    Also I really feel for xbox live to justify its price it really should provide servers for all games or alternatively those games that have online pass should be usable without subscribing to xbox live. To pay twice seems unfair.

    At the end of the day though these companies set out their terms and if you don't agree with them don't buy their products. They are raising extra revenue without actually increasing the cost of games which is a good thing. They will actually decrease the value of secondhand games so those of us who are more interested in the single player scripted experience will benefit and pay less for games if we buy secondhand. The real loser is the person who buys new games and sells them on he will get a lower resale value but perhaps this will encourage gamers to keep their games longer. I'm sure shops will maintain their margins they will just factor in this to the price they offer.

    Personally I think publishers are their own worst enemies. We need a situation where game prices are stabilised and we don't get the ridiculous discounting of titles that don't sell huge numbers. Really if a game is released for Ł30 in the shops it should hold that price for 18 months even if sales are low. Games should be manufactured in batches and as stocks diminish from stores new orders should be placed for the same title. Publishers destroy the perceived value of games by ridiculous early discounting. I know part of the reason is they want to get as many titles out there before secondhand copies start competing with new copies but the way to do that is to keep some content back as free downloads. I.e. you buy a game for with 10 included levels but for the next 12 months a new level is released free every month or perhaps new characters, new features and other free additions that keep people interested in keeping their copy rather than selling it.

    For example if I bought a game like Fallout 3 and next month there was a new area to explore, the month after that a new character was added to the wasteland, perhaps a month after that new music was added, then another new character etc. Just keeps the game fresh and in people's minds and motivates people not to sell on the title.

  • Spuzzell #79 4 months ago

    Give the publisher some money and in return they give you an online game. Don't give any money to the publisher and they don't give you an online game.

    How is that controversial?

  • H_D_Swagger #80 4 months ago

    @ Raptaur

    "Kinda weird then how the price of XBox arcade and PSN titles reduce in prices over time, there doesn't seem to be a second hand market there?"

    I said " If the second hand market didn't exist there wouldn't be the same downward pressure on the price of new games". Yes of course the price of new games will come down over time, but if there is no second hand market the price will come down less.

  • Poohstix #81 4 months ago

    Best defense I have heard for the practice. As has been mentioned retailers are going to have to factor this into their preowned prices. A preowned copy of F1 2011 costs Ł3 less than new and if the online pass has been activated you are actually paying more for preowned.

  • cw- #82 4 months ago

    @Geodimp
    At the moment the best UK online games are p2p, yes thats COD, or cybertron, or UC2, or anything that is not EA. Its not the games, not the pubs, its the EA servers that ruin the online. Gears 3 - lagfest, wish some of these games used different publisher.

    What has EA got to do with Gears 3?

  • dadrester #83 4 months ago

    "Just another way for game companies to squeeze more money out of people. If you believe the justification they give you're gullible. These online passes are supposedly to give game companies money from second hand sales, but you can be sure it won't lead to the cost of new release games coming down by a proportional amount.... Some of you seem to want to give away more of your money."

    Why do you say "squeeze more money out of you?" If you're buying a game second hand they're not getting anything from you? You're not their customer and they owe you absolutely NOTHING! If on the other hand you buy the game new, you're paying them and they provide you with a code that enables you to play the game as it was intended. You're not spending any more.

    My favourite analogy is one of a coffee shop. I sell you a coffee and my promotion is that I will give away a cake to every customer. You eat and enjoy the cake but decide to sell the coffee to someone else. They then come into my shop demanding a free cake, but given they're not a customer of mine I have 2 choices. I can sell them a cake or i can tell them to get the fuck out of my coffee shop.

  • DwarfyP #84 4 months ago

    Who is Ian Kertz?
    You mean Alan Kertz surely?

    That guy leaks more information than their marketing department.

    @sheldipez
    You know how databases work?
    Just because player A stops playing doesn't mean their data is deleted.
    Also, say EA budgets server up time for an average player of 1 year (after all a server costs money to run constantly and Ł40 isn't gonna cover that use forever) and then 5 people buy that one copy one after the other. That is 4 years of extra server coverage they need to provide at a cost to them.

    @xuiton
    And how do those "retard publishers" convince the retailers to give up their profits and pay the publisher a cut? There is no incentive for the retailers to ever do that. The retailers would put up the costs of used games and then they'd be the same price as new games so there would be no used games market to worry about.
    Edited by 2 at 15/10/11 @ 22:34

  • HeNiCiDe1988 #85 4 months ago

    haha, it is fair enough seriously I didnt realize used games didnt go to the developers that they just went to the stores no wonder gamestop go so big, I mean I dont like it but developers should get money they can and unforunately that runs parrarell with publishers making money.

  • Aradiel #86 4 months ago

    Fair enough... except that when someone sells a game to someone else they cease to have it and cease to take up (as much) room on servers...

    So, if the server costs are too high, does that mean that if there were no second hand sales they'd go bankrupt?
    I doubt it.

    [edit] For clarification, in case no one wants to read my other post:
    Assume that there are no second hand sales whatsoever, but there are no extra first hand sales. Only the people who are going to buy it first hand anyway, will.
    Some money form each first hand sale is dedicated to server costs, and the servers will stay on for a particular amount of time.
    The costs of maintaining a profile on a database are very very small, and can almost be assumed to be zero.
    Will the costs of running the servers exceed the money that they got through the sales?
    If so, then a pass is somewhat justified, and their game is in fact dependent on second hand sales.
    If not, then they are lying to us and just trying to maximize their profit margins.
    Edited by 1 at 16/10/11 @ 09:35

  • bebox2010 #87 4 months ago

    Who the fuck isn't buying this on launch day anyway?

  • dadrester #88 4 months ago

    So, if the server costs are too high, does that mean that if there were no second hand sales they'd go bankrupt?
    I doubt it.

    what?

  • cw- #89 4 months ago

    @Aradiel

    When I purchase my shiny new copy, it will cover the costs of my account (creation/ storage), bandwidth, development costs, marketing etc.

    If I were to sell my copy onto someone else, then EA will get zero monies towards the new person costs of the above, AND they still have the cost of keeping my account - I will of course no longer be using bandwidth, but someone else (who hasn't given any money to EA towards this cost) will be.

    So, if the server costs are too high, does that mean that if there were no second hand sales they'd go bankrupt?
    I doubt it.
    You fail to acknowledge the fact that, without second hand sales everyone would be forced to buy it new, throughout the entire life of the game, and they would get money for every single sale.

  • Aradiel #90 4 months ago

    @cw-
    You evidently misunderstood my point, so I'll reiterate in a clearer way, while responding to you.

    "You fail to acknowledge the fact that, without second hand sales everyone would be forced to buy it new, throughout the entire life of the game, and they would get money for every single sale."

    Let's instead put it this way - let's assume that there are no second hand sales, but there are no *extra* first hand sales, either:
    5 million sales, with Ł10 going to the publishers and devs for each one, purely for server costs.
    That's Ł50 million.

    Will the server costs for the servers, over their lifetime, exceed that amount?
    If yes, then I find the online pass justifiable.
    If not, then it is just trying to enhance their profit margins.

    Or, here's another way:

    Yes, when a new person signs up, the previous person's profile remains, but what is the cost of actually maintaining that data?
    As someone who deals with databases and servers on a daily basis, I feel that I can say with a fair amount of confidence, that the cost is almost negligible. The bandwidth cost would be the real money-pit.
    Will the cost of keeping someone's entry in a database, *and only their entry in a database*, cost more than Ł10 over the lifetime of the servers?
    If yes, the maybe the pass is justifiable.
    If not, then it is merely an attempt to maximize profit margins.

  • FireMonkey #91 4 months ago

    @agparrot - "My issue with paying for Live and for the Online Pass is that I *have* to pay for them both in order to play online. If I could pay for the online pass for BF3, and cancel my Gold subscription for a few months while I use EA's servers exclusively to play BF3, I'd happily do that."

    If you want to watch SkyTV, you have to pay a subscription to sky and pay for a TV License so that the BBC can remain 'free' even if you don't watch BBC. In fact you need to pay a license even if you can receive the TV signals but don't watch any TV (i.e just play console games). That has been happening for years now and is a much worse situation.

    The difference here is that even though you are using EA's game servers, all the parties, in-game voice chat, achievements, etc IS stil using XBox live.
    Edited by 1 at 16/10/11 @ 10:06

  • FireMonkey #92 4 months ago

    @dadrester - "get the fuck out of my coffee shop"
    +1

  • FireMonkey #93 4 months ago

    @Aradiel - "...it is merely an attempt to maximize profit margins."
    Yes. It's called business and that is the basis of what every business wants to do. They don't need to justify the costs.

    Now if it were a service, then yes they should be justifying it but they are not. They are here to make as much money as possible in whatever way possible.

    It doesn't really matter if people like the online pass or like EA. If EA see there profits go up because of it then they will be happy and continue to do it.

    That is business. That is life. If you don't get it then I hate to think how you will cope with the big world out there away from gaming as much worse practices are going on all the time.
    Edited by 1 at 16/10/11 @ 10:21

  • zubnut #94 4 months ago

    Why can't devs/publishers just be honest and stop confusing the issue with this server cost bullshit.
    The ONLY reason they should be trying to justify the online pass with is that they want to make a bit of cash from 2nd hand sales.

    Just be honest about it for fucks sake, I'd respect you more and you wouldn't get half the comments on here being about the smokescreen server crap.

    Server costs for a 2nd hand game user playing online is negligible, as in the vast majority of cases the 1st hand buyer isn't playing it anymore. You cannot argue otherwise that storing a fucking users file size measured in kb is costing more than half a fraction of a penny.

    I haven't got a problem with the online pass, just the fucking lame excuses for it.

    Spleen vented :)

  • SheffAl #95 4 months ago

    Spot on, zubnut.

  • Aradiel #96 4 months ago

    @Firemonkey
    "@Aradiel - "...it is merely an attempt to maximize profit margins."
    Yes. It's called business and that is the basis of what every business wants to do. They don't need to justify the costs. "

    Ah, so you admit that their justification for the cost is a lie, and that my complaint is therefore valid?
    I honestly don't care if they want to make money, I'm not an idiot. But I don't like being treated like one, by having them lie to us about why they are doing the online pass.

    I'm sorry that my point flew over your head.

  • escapo #97 4 months ago

    Fuck em.

  • stormbringer_2011 #98 4 months ago

    why don't they just make an online pass really expensive so it makes buying a second hand copy pointless

  • Nero89 #99 4 months ago

    Do we get a paper manual? pffff......

  • metalangel #100 4 months ago

    Why are so many people going on about how it costs EA money to store your "account details", which must take up less than a megabyte in total? Why, then, if this is a crippling expense to EA do you not have to pay to make an EA account on their website. Could I bankrupt EA by making thousands of empty accounts and let the "storage costs" overwhelm their billion dollar revenues?

  • Saxo #101 4 months ago

    I think its fair.

  • ballshock #102 4 months ago

    servers cost money yeah, the first person who paid, paid for those servers, so even if he sold it it, the servers wouldnt be troubled, because one guy came off, and a new guy came on.

    But whatever i've pre ordered it anyway

  • Geordiemp #103 4 months ago

    Does online pass allow any user on that console to play online, or just the one player gametag ?

    If you have a family xbox and 2 or more players who want to play the game, then only one can play, so you need the game plus a couple of passes ?

    If so, that sucks, and they can get lost.

  • carlitoswagon #104 4 months ago

    Have no problem with this. Have pre-ordered already and knew the online pass would be in action just like BC2.

    I can imagine trolling fanboys would be most offended by this, but who cares.

    Also, any genius who see p2p hosting as a better alternative to dedicated servers is ill informed. Just ask Splash Damage.

  • BuiltToLast #105 4 months ago

    Current set up:
    Basically new = some money goes to people who made it.
    Second hand = no money goes to the people who made it.

    As much as I want to get the games I love as cheaply as possible (I'm ever so poor) I still want the developers to get some of the money they deserve. It's just a shame this is the way its going but I do find it rather ridiculous that when going into game shops I struggle to find the 'new' games I want, way after release which would have reduced in price because its flooded with second hand copies.

  • madjim #106 4 months ago

    Buy a new car, have everything. Buy it used, and the airconditioning or the MP3 player is disabled.
    Buy a new PS3, have everything. Buy it used, and you get half the processing power, half the hard drive, and only half the gamepad buttons.

    Yes, I know, it's rather outrageous.

  • Bluetooth #107 4 months ago

    I wish they just released the offline version at a vastly cheaper price, most people will be buying Battlefield for the MP but there are still some who will just get if for single player.

  • DrizztP #108 4 months ago

    Oh no life as we know it will end. You are too cheap to buy the game new and now you have to contribute something like the rest of the paying public. Clearly doing your part is way too much.

    @ xuiton
    I think you should offer your services. You should fly around the world and go to every used game store (on your own expense since it's so easy and cheap) and negotiate the terms. And since there is not only one publisher you could do that for every game that comes out with an online pass. Because you clearly have this all figured out.

    or and this is just a thought... Instead of getting used game stores to cut the publishers in on the profits which will no doubt cause all the used game stores to push their game prices up. The publisher could use a central means of charging people, who are to stingy to buy the game new, to charge them a fee which will allow them to access / contribute to the servers that they maintain for the general public who do actually save up and go out and buy the game new...

  • FireMonkey #109 4 months ago

    @madjim - "Buy a new car, have everything. Buy it used, and the airconditioning or the MP3 player is disabled."

    Try, "Buy a new car, have everything. Buy it used, and have a warn out cam shaft, rust under the exhaust a damage CD player no warranty and a bill for Ł1000's of replacement parts (which are either official and bought from the original manufacturer or unofficial where the manufacturer was paid a license fee for use of the design)"

    Yup, that's about right.

  • FireMonkey #110 4 months ago

    @Bluetooth - "I wish they just released the offline version at a vastly cheaper price, most people will be buying Battlefield for the MP but there are still some who will just get if for single player."

    I've said the same thing a few times. Seeing stores will have to drop 2nd hand prices due to having no online it will make 2nd hand games even cheaper and so more tempting for those that don't want online. So effectively, not releasing a new version without online is going to push some more people to 2nd hand rather than the other way.

  • FireMonkey #111 4 months ago

    @Aradiel - Ah, so you admit that their justification for the cost is a lie, and that my complaint is therefore valid?
    I honestly don't care if they want to make money, I'm not an idiot. But I don't like being treated like one, by having them lie to us about why they are doing the online pass.

    I'm sorry that my point flew over your head."

    No, that never flew over my head. The said "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."

    That statement is completely true. Yes, I'd like them to be more open as the statement is a little misleading, but just because they haven't said "and we want to make a nice big profit out of second hand sales" does not make what they said a lie.

  • DiamondIce #112 4 months ago

    When I used the code in Bad Company 2 both the profiles on our 360 could use it.

    When I transferred all the data from my 60GB onto a Slim 250GB only the original tag that redeemed the code could use it.

    I am still not 100% sure whether these passes can be used by all profiles on the one console.

  • jetsetwillie #113 4 months ago

    i think its absolutely disgusting and a disgrace that dev and publisher want to turn a profit from there games.

    who the fuck do they think they are.

    don't they realise just how much we are all entitled to and how lucky they are that we decide to buy there games. even if its second hand and the dev/publish has not seen ONE SINGLE PENNY of the money i spent. they still owe me everything that someone that spent the extra on a new copy gets.

    i once bought a EA game new back in 2006 so don't think i've not contributed to EA's greed. i helped them become what they are today and they should be thankfull

  • geeza2020 #114 4 months ago

    zzzZZZZZzzzzz

  • Nikanoru #115 4 months ago

    I think it's been mentioned before, but...

    Developers/publishers: if you're going to neatly separate the multiplayer part of the game and price it on its own, that's great! PLEASE when I buy your game new, let me opt out of the multiplayer portion and pay LESS!

    No? Oh, of course that wouldn't happen. Because that would actually be consumer-oriented wouldn't it? That'll be the day, hah!

  • 00.00.01 #116 4 months ago

    Meh. This just shows greed. Has Ian? Kertz any idea what he says? We're talking about the storage of a bit of info about a player's (online) performance...Per sold (distributed) copy a dedicated amount of storage space is reserved, and EA is well aware how many copies went out globally. Also...any idea how many FB/MySpace/Bebo etc accounts are being created every single day? No charges whatsoever.
    And metalangel has a very valid point too, so +1 good sir.

  • kwarive #117 4 months ago

    Time to cancel my preorder... greedy dickheads

  • themorganator #118 4 months ago

    "It was actually a loss for us to have new players"

    Bollocks. You sell your DLC.. twice.

  • xSunnshiin3 #119 2 months ago

    I guess it's fair, but if someone gets a preowned game the person who sold it back should of given the online code with it aswell.