By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - EA'S online passes suck! Dont buy their new games!!!

SmokedHostage on 02 June 2010

I'm not going to boycott a company if their new games have online for free.  I will boycott them if they expect me to buy a new iteration every year for the same price or more just to be relevant(Shut up).  I'll also boycott them if the servers for older games go down after forcing me to pay 10 or so dollars to get them on used.



Pixel Art can be fun.

Around the Network
IllegalPaladin on 02 June 2010
Kasz216 said:
IllegalPaladin said:

And everything Valve has added/tweaked in Team Fortress 2 has been free and it sells for $30 if you buy the Orange Box or $20 standalone. 

Compare that to $15 Modern Warfare 2 map packs and $2 Bad Company 2 specialization perks.


My point is... Valve is doing that basically for free... so clearly the cost isn't that great in terms of servers.  They're activily costing themself money.

Not to mention, saying they should be able to do this because they work off fictious math is like saying they should be able to charge longtime players 10 dollars if more of them stick on then they should.

Alternativly, I should be able to ask for 10 dollars back from EA is I decide to play the game less online then expected.

Or you know.... play the game less in general.  Which is why used game sales work for the consumer.  (Well consumers not like me anyway, who want to go back and play pretty much any game at their library years after purchase.)

I'm not going against the used market. I just don't care much for Gamestop's lower buy back amount and higher used prices much like I don't like a university's bookstore's buy back amount and used book prices.

Something like Amazon is better where I'm considering getting FFXIII used for under $40 after shipping where it costs $50 used at Gamestop.



Garnett on 02 June 2010
Kasz216 said:
MARCUSDJACKSON said:

if both sides made money off the sell of used games than this wouldn't be a problem. they need to find a way to balance it so it will be fair and profitable to retailer, publisher, and developer. what if the sell of used games caused a very important studio to close? Epic, Insomiac, or level 5 just to name a 3.


If that was the case... it would be Epic, Insominiac or Level 5 put out series of bad games that few people bought... and the people who did buy them sold them back because the games were shitty.

If any company goes out of buisness because of Used sales it's a GOOD thing.

Used games aren't crippling anything.  It's bullshit corporate propganda because they want to get away with charging the consumers with more.

Used game sales aren't any worse then the PS2 era... people weren't complainging then.


I mean hell... most used games aren't even purchased until the new versions are hard to find on shelves in the first place... and the used versions that ARE on the shelves before then... are there because the person who bought it didn't like the game.

By destroying the used game markets all you do is destroy your "saftey net" for new buyers.  End result...

LESS people take risks and buy full price games.

Instead people buy less games in general, still buy used where they can, but buy less. 

That makes sense. If game companys say that piracy is hurting them, they can charge for DLC and no one bitches...

 

Lets take Bad Company 2 for example...

If you buy BC2 new then you get a "Vip".

The "VIP "code is supposed to give you free "DLC", but it doesnt.

What it does give you is, the same maps thats already on the game disc, but unlocked for different modes, like Laguana is for Rush now.

Thats cool and all but if you buy used your being ripped off, if you want the "VIP" Code its 1200 MSP which equals to $16, (this is why i hate the point system, you HAVE to spend $16, instead of just 10. Fucking MS points are a rip off) and all it does is give you the VIP code, which is just maps that are already on the disc.

This is how shit should be done, you should encourage gamers to buy new instead of USED, not pushing the people who buy used.



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

chapset on 02 June 2010

soon you gonna pay 60$ for the game 10$ to be able to play it offline 10$ for online 10$ to be able to use move or natal on it 15$ dlc including harder difficultys, the start menu and shit



Bet reminder: I bet with Tboned51 that Splatoon won't reach the 1 million shipped mark by the end of 2015. I win if he loses and I lose if I lost.

Kasz216 on 02 June 2010
IllegalPaladin said:
Kasz216 said:
IllegalPaladin said:

And everything Valve has added/tweaked in Team Fortress 2 has been free and it sells for $30 if you buy the Orange Box or $20 standalone. 

Compare that to $15 Modern Warfare 2 map packs and $2 Bad Company 2 specialization perks.


My point is... Valve is doing that basically for free... so clearly the cost isn't that great in terms of servers.  They're activily costing themself money.

Not to mention, saying they should be able to do this because they work off fictious math is like saying they should be able to charge longtime players 10 dollars if more of them stick on then they should.

Alternativly, I should be able to ask for 10 dollars back from EA is I decide to play the game less online then expected.

Or you know.... play the game less in general.  Which is why used game sales work for the consumer.  (Well consumers not like me anyway, who want to go back and play pretty much any game at their library years after purchase.)

I'm not going against the used market. I just don't care much for Gamestop's lower buy back amount and higher used prices much like I don't like a university's bookstore's buy back amount and used book prices.

Something like Amazon is better where I'm considering getting FFXIII used for under $40 after shipping where it costs $50 used at Gamestop.

...and what part of this deal DOESN'T hurt Amazon equally as much as gamestop or actually more?  They have a lower profit margin.

Either there profit margin is lower now or non existant.... they offer people less money, or their prices raise.

Lose, lose, lose.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 02 June 2010
chapset said:

soon you gonna pay 60$ for the game 10$ to be able to play it offline 10$ for online 10$ to be able to use move or natal on it 15$ dlc including harder difficultys, the start menu and shit


Don't forget the original version of this plan wasn't for online... but for the ending of games.

Meaning if you bought a game used you had to pay EA or someone $10 to "unlock" the ending.



DEADLY SINNERS on 02 June 2010

I wonder why they won't let everyone know about this fee of 10.

I read about it a month ago but did not think they were gonna try and do this without a warning this is complete bs.

The whole piracy blame was bs and this is too

Why would you punish me by making me pay $10 when im legaly buying your effing game.

Now with this online pass is it tied to one account?

Let's say i own 1 xbox360 that me and my bro play on will the pass be locked onto 1 profile only and not the system?

this makes me very angry.screwing us over people who buy there games regardless of whether

 they make a profit or not 

No this if you continue to be greedy and try to force a broke/poor person like me to pay extra I will pirate the heck out of your games since buying used is not goo enough for you

At game stop if you buy new you can not return it and get a different game unless you trade it in which you will get less than 50%

buying used allows you too bring it back and get something different within 7 days

Congrats EA I will now look out for anygame (whether it be sports or shooter) with your logo on them and think twice before buying.

This week i was gonna buy Super streetfighter 4 used but sense capcom is such a great company and does not try to pull greedy bs crap Like this i will gladly buy new with a smile on my face



radiantshadow92 on 02 June 2010

Sorry, but EA is one of my favorite publishers. If i were them, i would be sick of Gamestop making uber profits on MY games too. I am with their online pass, and any other publisher that does it too. (unless the online pass costs 30$ for some reason).



IllegalPaladin on 02 June 2010
Kasz216 said:
IllegalPaladin said:
Kasz216 said:
IllegalPaladin said:

And everything Valve has added/tweaked in Team Fortress 2 has been free and it sells for $30 if you buy the Orange Box or $20 standalone. 

Compare that to $15 Modern Warfare 2 map packs and $2 Bad Company 2 specialization perks.


My point is... Valve is doing that basically for free... so clearly the cost isn't that great in terms of servers.  They're activily costing themself money.

Not to mention, saying they should be able to do this because they work off fictious math is like saying they should be able to charge longtime players 10 dollars if more of them stick on then they should.

Alternativly, I should be able to ask for 10 dollars back from EA is I decide to play the game less online then expected.

Or you know.... play the game less in general.  Which is why used game sales work for the consumer.  (Well consumers not like me anyway, who want to go back and play pretty much any game at their library years after purchase.)

I'm not going against the used market. I just don't care much for Gamestop's lower buy back amount and higher used prices much like I don't like a university's bookstore's buy back amount and used book prices.

Something like Amazon is better where I'm considering getting FFXIII used for under $40 after shipping where it costs $50 used at Gamestop.

...and what part of this deal DOESN'T hurt Amazon equally as much as gamestop or actually more?  They have a lower profit margin.

Either there profit margin is lower now or non existant.... they offer people less money, or their prices raise.

Lose, lose, lose.

While this still hurts no matter what (and I agree  with that), at least it costs less to buy something used and the seller gets all that money vs a place like Gamestop.

Perhaps I'm sounding like I'm trying to argue something more when I don't mean to. I can see why the publishers would want to do it, but all my posts about EA, Sony and these other publsihers have been against this and I fear for it escalating into cutting more stuff out of the game and selling it back.



Wagram on 02 June 2010

Actually I support this also. I mean I do feel bad for those who buy games used or people who want to rent them. But that should come at a cost I suppose. Your not paying the devs, your paying the retailer.