EA Confirms Online Pass For ME3

I'm sure places like Gamestop will just bundle the code with used purchases. At least, I personally think they'll start to do that.

Personally, I hope we reach a day when these passes are never used again, and gamestop et. al. just commit to something like 25% of net profit to devs in first year, 10% in second year of release, 5% in third, and nothing from then on forward.

That way, the consumer is left out of it, all businessmen are given their just dues, and more money goes back into the industry. (Which then results in a better product, more diversity, and quicker advancement in software)

Everyone wins.

Someday in the future, I predict this will happen, and the days of online passes will be a thing of the pass...t. (ha! See what I did there?.... *crickets* ahhhh.....)

---

Last edited by Underdog15 on 10/18/2011 10:15:21 AM

9 up, 2 down

Indeed. It's nice to see that GameStop are finally bowing to this inevitability. Online passes make used games more expensive for used game buyers so long as they have to buy the pass separately. so much so it'd be worth buying new instead. To keep their used game market alive, GameStop and the others have to react by bundling the online pass with used games. So the consumer does not lose out, the publishers keep some of the 'lost' revenue, and Gamestop loses some of their 150% profit margin on used games. Sounds like everyone important wins on the deal - gamers, publishers and developers.

2 up, 1 down

Highlander while I agree with you, I would also say that gamestop or any retailer in general is important for video games also. Afterall we need a place to buy them.

0 up, 0 down

GameStop does not need to gouge gamers by marking up used games by 150% over the trade value in order to stay alive. GameStop's used game business is a far, far bigger profit center for them than their sales of new games precisely because they have not shared any of that revenue (generated by the games) with the publishers. Now they have to share because the online passes force some of the revenue to go where it should - the maker of the game. It will hurt the quite obscene profits that GameStop and others make from used game sales, but it's not going to force them to close their doors, they will simply make less profit on used games. They sale of used games will continue to be highly profitable for them.

Personally I wouldn't worry about GameStop (and others) anyway, but I understand the point about making sure that game resellers can survive in the market. The thing is, they already make a pretty good amount on new game sales, so even if used game sales totally dried up tomorrow, they'd still make money.

0 up, 0 down

It's not quite a win-win even with Gamestop's new bundling, precisely because it's only gamestop that's big enough to do that.

I avoid shopping at gamestop whenever possible, which is to say always with the exception of getting my ps3 there since the 2 stores I went to before sold-out in 5 minutes when MGS4 and the dualshock 3 launched.

1 up, 1 down

No surprise...... just something we'll have to deal with and budget into our purchases from now on. Honestly I dont play much online except FPS (COD,Killzone,Battlefield), so as long as they dont move it to single player Im good but, with the precedent set by computer game companies, Im sure it's only a matter of time before it does go to single player.


And that saddens me......

---

Last edited by wackazoa on 10/18/2011 11:01:12 AM

1 up, 0 down

Dude it's already on single player games too. That didn't take long.

---

Last edited by Beamboom on 10/18/2011 11:50:42 AM

2 up, 0 down

Yeah but almost every game now has an online pass on debut. Only one for single play I heard was Batman......

0 up, 0 down

Sigh....the codes that come with single player games are not online passes, merely pieces of DLC that the publishers reward new buyers with for free. You're still getting a full package deal with or with out the DLC codes.

0 up, 0 down

@wacka: You obviously missed the rumble about the Rage sewers then. :) The direction this takes is crystal clear. Call it what you like: It's on the way into every game.

---

Last edited by Beamboom on 10/18/2011 1:28:50 PM

3 up, 0 down

@ Beam : Yeah I miss the thing with Rage. It's unfortunate when it comes to the industry of making money it is far to often monkey see monkey do....


@ Jawknee: I have no problem with DLC, not that I have ever bought any over the PS store. But my only hope is that they stop with the direction they are going. Not to debate the used v. new again, but you cant deny the trend in the gaming industry to get every last penny out of its customers.

4 up, 0 down

And I'll make bet that we won't get a real manual for ME3, just like they screwed me out of in ME2, & BF:BC 2.

"The conniving money-grubbing bast*rds should knock $10 off the price just for omitting it"

0 up, 0 down

The not having a manual was kinda hard for me to get used to actually..... kinda weird but true. I'd always forget which buttons did the small extra things in games and so always had the manual open to controls when playing.

1 up, 0 down

Just pre-order the strategy guide with any games you buy...it's better than most manuals used to be.

0 up, 1 down

What I find odd is that profitable publishers like EA cheap out on the manuals but failing publishers like Crapcom provide some heavy duty and colorful manuals.

3 up, 0 down

I've never understood why they don't include at least a 30-50 page manual. printing costs are not too bad, and they could easily include a lite version of the strategy guide as a manual. If there is anything that publishers have done to make the cost of games less palatable it is this. With the jump in the cost of games, there ought to have been a corresponding increase in the value of the package - in other words a decent manual. Instead, they have become smaller to the point where it makes sense (if you want a manual) to order the strategy guide with the game. the only other way is to get the premium/collector's version of a game that sometimes includes a manual of sorts.

For that additional price premium at $60 per game, they could at least have left us some kind of manual to go with our games.

2 up, 0 down

Yeah I loved the stuff that came with the games back in the days. Pages filled with background info, character presentations, maps, posters, all that nice stuff that we never got if we pirated the game.
Now the piracy is gone... And so are the goodies. :/

---

Last edited by Beamboom on 10/18/2011 3:15:25 PM

2 up, 0 down

Highlander,

<<<<Just pre-order the strategy guide>>>>

Gulp.... with 2,290 games now & still counting, that's just what I need, another huge batch of big bulky guides to take away even more of my now almost non-existent storage space. I'm already eying which piece of furniture is about to get tossed to make room for my expanding gaming collections, LOL.

At least with manuals, they already fit perfectly right inside their game cases so they don't go taking up any additional valuable & much-needed floor & shelf space.

Plus I never use guides, I feel as if I'm cheating the game, the system, and therefore myself too, so they're a huge no-no for me.

With that said, once-upon-a-time, I used to collect the guides too, so I've got a ton of N64, Genesis, & Saturn game guides all packed away in boxes now, but you know what?
Over the years they've accumulated some-what of a musty odor from just sitting around all that time, that I'm almost tempted to sell them all off.

And even now, I never use the manuals that in my current games either, unless I get stuck & just need to make sure I've got my buttons right, or figuring maybe on how to do a certain load-out before actual play-time begins.

BTW, I "DO" want a few guides just as "companion keepsakes", but only for a small handful of my most favorite treasured iconic games, such as the mint ICO guide I picked just last week. And I also plan to pick up one for SOTC, Indigo Prophecy, Beyond Good & Evil, plus Heavy Rain(and maybe a couple mor).


Anyway, for me, it all boils down to that the original manuals are highly useful & they serve a purpose to the game, therefore they're both, needed, and they're wanted.
As far back as I can remember, it's always been this way & it really needs to stay this way.
Plus, since they're still charging me $59.99(USD) for a manual-less game, I'm being gouged & ripped off big-time.

So, if developers & publishers keep nickel & diming us to death, where will it all end?
And just how soon will it be before we're all seeing brand new games released in cellophane sleeves only next, instead of our now-current cases?

Maybe we should just start ordering some extra strength Vasoline in the industrial sized 55 gallon drum before we get bent over & butt-raped any longer

"They've already taken an inch of your gaming, and are planning to steal another 137.9 miles worth soon enough"

(BTW Highlander, it wasn't me who thumbed you down in that post).

---

Last edited by BikerSaint on 10/18/2011 9:21:40 PM

0 up, 0 down

No problem Biker, I was being both sarcastic and cheeky and left off the emoticon. My second post more accurately reflects how I feel about the subject. When publishers stopped including manuals I was super-annoyed. I still am. I can remember the books that you would get with Civilization games - for example, now you get a CD case with liner notes. Considering how much the games cost, I don't understand why they can't simply work with the publishers of the strategy guides to create a manual at the same time as the guide that avoids any spoiler information, but includes all the information about the controls and some backstory where appropriate. The guide is being written anyway, they might as well take a couple of the chapters from it along with some of the art and give gamers a reasonable manual with the game. Personally if they did that and created a premium bundle that game with the full guide instead, I think a lot more guides would be sold, as would a lot more games.

Oddly enough, when games cam with actual manuals, there was far less incentive (as Beamboom said) to pirate or buy used. You seldom get the manual with a used game - even though they are now 8 page pamphlets. In fact quite often a used game doesn't come with the case or liner either. that used to be the major disincentive to buy a used game. Now with no manual and a disc that generally won't scratch, a used game is nearly as good as new. Perhaps if publishers returned to including a good manual that contained useful information, we'd see a lot more new games being sold because people don't want to buy a used game that comes without the manual or case.

1 up, 0 down

I don't have any problem with it at all. Gamestop, et al have the right to sell used games for which the publishers receive ZERO dollars? Fine. But then game makers have every right to incentivize new game purchases and establish revenue streams from the used game market (i.e., the online pass).

1 up, 0 down

And, I should add, any and everyone has a right to be as pissed about the practice as they want :)

2 up, 0 down

This has gone stale. Online Pass is garbage but it's not going anywhere so it is what it is. I still don't believe there's any reason for it other than to double dip. Now this crap is in SP also..just a sign of more to come..

1 up, 4 down

Curious, where is it in SP? I really don't have a problem with the pass but do think it double dips a bit(as in I think it more then covers their cost of your addition into the system). I hate DRM and other systems that require you to be conected inorder to play a game in SP.

---

Last edited by 79transam on 10/18/2011 12:50:25 PM

1 up, 0 down

No it is not. The codes that come with single player games like Rage and Batman are pieces of DLC that new buyers get for free.

---

Last edited by Jawknee on 10/18/2011 1:24:54 PM

0 up, 1 down

Yes it is. It's essentially what the whole Arkham City thing is. Only way you can access the Catwoman missions is if you have A. the code or B. buy the code. Although it's not a huge part of the game at all, the fact that it's locked if you don't buy it new is BS. It's exactly what it is in Rage as well..

Can sugar coat it and call it dlc if you want. Like I said it is what it is. Although it's minor it's still BS.

0 up, 0 down

While I understand your point slugga that does not bother me. What I am worried about is that you go buy a used game, get home, and have to go online to either A: Play the game or B: to buy a pass that allows you to even play the single player portion at all. I don't buy many games used and when I do they tend to be older titles that I never got around too (resistance was recently bought this way).

I want to know that if my internet is out or not hooked up due to a recent move that I will always be able to play games

0 up, 0 down

Modern and current gaming and the future of gaming requires internet. Especially as we move ever closer to non-physical media in all entertainment avenues.

If you are NEVER near the internet, next-gen gaming will not be fully accessible to you. It already isn't fully accessible to you. It wouldn't have been fully accessible to you over the last 5 years, either.

Using that as an excuse is the sugar-coating here, if you ask me. Most people have internet, if not broadband. You need it for firmware updates and ANY publisher/developer supported patch or update.

Seriously, if you have no internet access, you've been missing out on mandatory patches, updates, firmware, DLC, etc. for years now. Having a devalued version of the game you bought is NOTHING new to people without internet.

Please don't pretend like that's somehow this new and overlooked penalty to these DLC passes. Without internet, you knew from the beginning you'll miss out on DLC, patches to games that need fixes, and more.

I remember editorials from 5 years ago about how people without internet are currently now and in the future going to miss out on features accessible to people with internet.

It's old news. And it's a cop out to all of a sudden be surprised to be left out in the cold if you have no internet.

This is the natural selection of technology. Only the strong excel... and without internet, your future in gaming will not survive as successfully as most of us who do have it.

I will always keep my PS1 and PS2 (and PS3) for times I cannot access everything I want to. I've done it before when someone drove their car over the cable box in our neighborhood. (Drunk a-hole. lol) There's good and bad to the future of gaming. Inaccessibility will leave you crippled. Keep the old stuff for those times. If you'll never have access to internet... best be prepared to fall behind.


I find it humorous that after 5 years of never being able to fully access a game and it's features (free patches and developer updates), you're only NOW calling it BS, just because it suits your current agenda.... Let's be realistic, here, people.

And who doesn't have internet anymore?!?! I've had it since 1994 (or 1995, maybe, can't remember). And it's not like I'm rich now... nor was I when I was a student....

---

Last edited by Underdog15 on 10/18/2011 2:34:19 PM

3 up, 1 down

@79transam

By all means I'm not saying it should bother you at all. In your example you'd still be able to play your games no issue at all. You'd still be able to be the gamer you are. Yet say you didn't input or buy your code, you can't access that small portion of the game. I'm not expecting everybody to agree with me. Just my opinion..I don't buy many used games it's just the principle of it

0 up, 0 down

In principle, I believe consumers should fight, not just for their own rights, but fairness to the industries they support. The current model is not ideal for anyone. Not even the consumer.

Consumers should be fighting for change. Unfortunately, consumers seem to only be capable of fighting for the best option that they've had, so far. Not the best option overall. Consumers need to be more creative and 3-dimensional in their thinking.

Fight and advocate for change and principle, sure. But neither used game sales with no benefit to the developer nor online passes are the best option. In truth, the best option seems to be in the future based on the current path we are on, but it has not been realized yet.

I just wish people were able to think beyond the only things they've seen so far and think about the way things could be...

2 up, 0 down

@ Underdog

I'm a bit lost with the dialogue you have regarding internet..I'm not sure what you're talking about there

Used game sales don't hurt if you ask me. It's the nature of what America was built on. Buy, sell, trade. Although I do understand your view point in that it's not good for anybody right now. Which I can agree with 100%. I just feel like the pricing of games need to drop. If developer Joe Schmo made a game and had online pass then it shouldn't cost $60 out the gate. To me it essentially sounds as if Joe Schmo is putting a price tag on what it cost to play online or access X feature.

Lower the price on games would benefit everybody. Buy it used and you still pay for online if you wish and developer sees profit. Used game stores would still see sales. Developers would see a increase in sales due to the lower pricing. Not talking about a huge price cut but if devs are placing a $10 ticket for X feature than games should be $49.99

0 up, 0 down

Underdog just to be clear I do have internet, and I agree with your points I just wish it wasn't so. Look at the PSN crash if the future of SP games requires you to be online at all times then network security will have to become the absolute priority.

I think I will just always be somebody who prefers to have the physical media. I like going to the store, getting the game I wanted, and bringing it home. Such is life, things change and we as gamers will have to change with it.

0 up, 0 down

Jawknee,
My opinion is that if it's already on the disc, it's not DLC. It' part of the game that's been taken away as naughty-time punishment towards the wrong target.
And to me, that's a blatant rip-off & a huge nose-thumbing from them towards all gamers!

If they really wanted to slow GameStop's role, then by all means necessary, adjust & adapt and take it to them 100%, just as long as it's actually aimed at GS & not at the gamers.

---

Last edited by BikerSaint on 10/18/2011 9:32:44 PM

0 up, 0 down

Well, I'm not American, but as an observer, if that's how America is built on, (giving money to corporations and not investing in their own industries) then perhaps that way of thinking is partially to blame for the pathetic economy there?

Sorry to be harsh, but I don't buy the "It's the way it's always been" approach. Change is often necessary in all things in life.

0 up, 0 down

Well..our economy does suck but that's not the reason. That's a whole different can of worms there. It's not just America but the world has been built on buy, sell, and trade. History proves as much. Devs are trying to say they deserve special treatment and the reality is that they don't. Sure, as fans I understand the view point of others.

Yet, this is a business no matter how you look at it. The whole "pass" thing is BS but if gamers are going to overlook it then it'll keep expanding into other parts of our games.

0 up, 0 down

No, you're drastically by-passing my point. The economical fallacies you believe in are staggering. You NEED to see the bigger picture. Stop looking only at the consumer perspective. It's destroying your economy. Any economist knows this, deep down. Without investing in your industries, your economy will fail. Why are you ignoring my point on that?!?!!

The buy, sell, trade model only works when people live within their means. If history is to prove anything at all, it's that buy, sell, and trade has worked remarkably well because people buy sell and trade with goods they produced. The industry supports itself over and over.

Investing into big corporations that are not, in any way, tied to the industry that develops the domestic product (games or likewise), hurts the overall GDP.

In this case, there is a tremendous amount of buy sell trade, but the only naturally garnered "good" being traded is the income earned by the initial buyer. After that, all buy, sell, trade, exists in a market completely removed from the industry.

That's the first issue. And it's rampant in the US. Americans constantly invest in foreign goods, and most domestic spending, is given to private corporations that do not give a return to your own industries. Gamestop is only one tiny piece of that gigantic "consumer is always right" mentality problem that has caused the majority of issues there.

The other problem with the buy, sell, trade, model in 1st world society, is that people live outside their means. People live off consumer debt, and invested debt that is beyond their means (ie. Mortgages with stupid rates) or with banks that give stupid rates to be competitive... rates that do not match the market trends.

The second issue isn't related to gaming so much beyond the mentality, but the first mentality is also to blame.

You can't just pick and choose which bad models you're ok with overlooking. The mentality in the used game market focuses on what the consumer wants, because the consumer only cares about themselves. Since the consumer lacks any idea of the bigger picture, big private corporations like gamestop make an absolute killing without investing in the industry.

Things are changing, and that's good. It's not where it needs to be, for sure. But it is starting. If it never gets fixed, the industry will inevitably suffer, if it hasn't already.

Yes, people have always bought, sold, and traded... and in theory it works. BUT you ignore the fact that in history, people bought sold and traded their OWN personal goods... goods harvested, made, and produced by the very people that do the trading... in other words... it supported local industry DIRECTLY. Even rich people or business were managed and produced locally.

THIS is the most major mentality that has damaged the American economy in terms of consumers. It's the same mentality Gamestop instills in their consumers. Why can't you see that?!

You know, Canada's economy makes similar mistakes, but there is a MUCH greater govenment presence in supporting local industry. Consumers are encouraged through government programs to invest in green energy, buy local products over imported, and grants for supporting Canadian businesses.

In the last 5 years, our economy has gotten stronger in everything except industries that ship in and out internationally. The American economy has affected our Auto industry, for example, negatively. But overall, our economy is strong and strengthening. Why?! Because our government encourages domestic support and support of local small business owners. Did you know 6 years ago, a Canadian dollar was worth only 60 cents American?? At one point, even less! No a Canadian dollar is worth $1.05 American. That's an incredible difference for only a few years.

Maybe I'm on to something. Maybe there is a problem with American consumerism...

---

Last edited by Underdog15 on 10/20/2011 9:15:48 AM

0 up, 0 down

Why don't the publisher make Gamefly and other rental companies pay a percentage like the movie studios do? Why do they reward Gamestop, one of the biggest sellers of used games, with exclusive DLC when they undercut the profits of the publisher? Finally, why do all consumers have to pay for the people who choose to use these services? I never use my online passes that come with games and will continue to refuse too. Personally, I believe the fans should be rewarded like ME2 and DA:O did with extra content that doesn't make or break the game.

1 up, 0 down

I doubt this will discourage used sales for this game much. I mean, everyone intent on buying ME3 was buying it for the single player from the start, and since they're not cutting content out of that if you buy used, I doubt many will feel forced to buy it new.

1 up, 0 down