It shouldn’t really hit you as any kind of surprise, but it appears EA’s Battlefield 3 might feature an online pass, at least in some capacity.
Speaking to Gamerzines, DICE’s Patrick Bach said that he “thinks” they are locking out players from online who don’t have a Pass (meaning you’ll need to buy the game new or grab a code from Xbox Live or the PSN Store).
“But I don’t think it’s an online pass,” he added, confusingly. “I think it’s our own back end. I’m not sure I want to call our system an online pass.”
[drop2]Bach doesn’t think that such as system would automatically give Activision’s Modern Warfare 3 an advantage, though.“The whole idea is that we’re paying for servers,” he said, “and if you create a new account there is a big process on how that is being handled in the back end.”
“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,” he admitted.
“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.”
Online passes aren’t exactly rare anymore, Sony’s PSN Pass has caused much discussion here on TSA and whilst we’re not always happy with them, they do appear to be the future, if only for the rather honest reasons outlined by DICE above.
BrainDiver
This is perfectly understandable, I think any game with dedicated servers would be silly not to have an online pass – no sense in the dev losing money just so people who buy pre-owned can have it a bit cheaper.
KeRaSh
“we don’t get a single dime from a used game, but we still need to create server space and everything for you,” he admitted.”
It amazes me that not even the devs get the fact that for every copy they sold, only one person is playing online at a time, no matter if it’s the initial owner of the game or if said copy was acquired second hand. If someone plays online with a used copy then the previous owner will not be able to play online anymore.
I understand that they want a cut for the pre-owned purchase but reasoning like that is just stupid.
Kovacs
And it amazes me you missed whathe said!
Everytime someone creates an account they have a cost. Just because the first guy isn’t playing the game anymore it means a) they created an account for that guy on their servers, and b) they’re continuing to store (back-up/monitor/protect/etc) the first player’s data. After all, they don’t know he’s never going to play again.
Bottom line: it’s a service, and everyone who uses a service should pay the service provider.
KeRaSh
I simply can’t imagine that an automated process like creating an account is that much of a problem. Can you?
Tracking stats? It’s data in a Database. It’s not going to change after he quit playing, no matter if they know about it or not. Disk space? Shouldn’t be a problem these days.
Kovacs
Aha! Now we’re getting into something entirely different. The COST of an online pass. That’s an entirely different debate.
My point was: it’s costing the service provider to support both the original owner and the preowned player. How much it’s costing them is difficult to quantify but the key element of my point holds true: it is costing them money and hence they have a right to charge for it.
KeRaSh
I agree with you. However I don’t think it’s worth as much as they are asking for.
I’m not into competitive MP anyways, so I’m not bothered. Just saying it’s not as bad as they want us to think it is when it comes down to the MP component. I guess it’s the only way they can cash in on pre-owned games since asking for a fee to play the campaign would piss off more people but in my opinion that would be the part of a game where they would be in the right to charge again.
Amphlett
I’m not sure I fancy getting online via their ‘back end’!
Am I the only guy here who sees double-entendres all the time? I reckon my life is one big Carry On film.
p9ul
“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,”
…but you no longer need to provide server space from whoever traded the game in do you?
online4ntagonist
saw that coming a mile away
embryo69
No surprise there!
I think I’m gonna wait for reviews before I consider this.
Rad4Life
I agree with his explanation. I love getting a good used bargain, but the studio makes nothing off of my savings. Yet if I get online, they take a cost. No one is trying to stop a consumer from enjoying the campaign or other challenge modes. The industry is trending towards this. Most of us are going to go without a fight and I think the case for a fight is weak. I want my favorite studios to remain in business and keep making great games. But the cost of making great games was going to lead us in this direction eventually.