Want to get screwed by EA? Get BF3 now!

[Ji99saw]

S.T.A.G.E. said:

Ji99saw said:

S.T.A.G.E. said:

Ji99saw said:

S.T.A.G.E. said:

Ji99saw said:

S.T.A.G.E. said:

VGKing said:

Euphoria14 said:
Gamers will bitch and moan, bitch and moan, bitch and moan, but at the end of the day they will then go out and buy the next EA title, Call of Duty, etc..., further enabling this stuff to go on.

Stop complaining and just stop buying their games. It is really that simple and is the only way to make things change.

Wait, what's so bad about Call of Duty?
What are we "enabling" by buying this game every year?

Is Activsion screwingn people with "rented servers" or "online passes"? Are they removing content from their games in favor of Call of Duty Elite?
That answer to all of this is NO.

Activision is a SAINT when compared to EA and Ubisoft.

The worst things in this industry such as Day 1 DLC, Online Passes are NOT supported by Call of Duty. So naturally, you should support these games over ones that do, should you?

Microsoft, EA and Activision are going to take the gaming industry into a full pay to play methodology next generation for sure if you don't keep your mind sharp to how this gen is going to end. Everything will have a dollar price and if they can't get it straight out of you they'll find other ways. I really do wish it was the days of fun gaming when the Japanese ruled the industry, but I am sure that is going to take a harsh turn now.

I love how you fail to mention Sony has implemented an online pass for every first prty game and a PS+ sucription. MS does not require an online pass for first party games a policy that was invented by EA

Ok...you pay ten dollars if you buy the game used. I don't mind that because I buy most of my games new. I was talking about BF3 server charge...but ok. Not my point, but you made a point nonetheless.

Actually I know it's when you buy it used I'm just making a point, You say MS is wrong for charging for Live even though MS  has to pay for the bandwidth and you are essentially saying you should have it all for free. But in the same thought defending Sony for online passes because they are not compensated for a used sale. When in reality MS has to pay a price for online so they charge for the service and Sony loses a used game sell so they charge also, if you would stop being a fanboy maybe you would see this.

Sony puts out a lot of games dude on a larger scale than Microsoft. The sales aren't exactly stellar for most (as is to be expected)and they are great games but I doubt most discount the quality or the risk. Marketing is a huge problem there on Sony's party.  Used sales could possibly contribute to this and if I buy a used game and get locked out because a title was too expensive I don't mind paying ten dollars. Xbox Live isn't justifying the cost when compared to PSN or even PC. As I said before to someone else as well I don't take kindly to paying Activision in my subscription because I don't play COD, I don't like the feeling that if I dont pay for Live I could be kicked out of my entertainment subscriptions as well. This is why more people watch Netflix on the PS3 than the 360. Does Microsoft really believe more people will opt for Xbox Live to watch UFC than their cable or satellite provider box which is next to the 360 in the house? It's an option yes, but it's not a selling point for Xbox Live in truth. ESPN? MSN? Am I paying for that? Are you? I don't even think casuals would over the alternative.

Stop just Stop, because your ramblings are getting off point and resemble a rehearing. Weather or not it is worth it is completely up to person paying for it and like you said it's optional. My only point was that it costs MS money so they charge for it that's all.

What ramblings? You made your point and I am just responding. It's called breaking down reasons for the cost. If Microsoft pays for bandwidth then so does Sony and Nintendo. If you're making that argument for Microsoft one would assume its the same for Sony since they are doing essentially the same thing, correct?

Well actually Sony makes company's pay for the bandwidth although I'm not sure about Nintendo although I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same. And I think Sony may eventually start to charge for PSN because its obviously lost enough money that they had to implement  PS+ to generate revenue