Sections

DICE: Battlefield 3 will probably feature some kind of online pass

Monday, 1st August 2011 18:13 GMT By Debabrata Nath

Battlefield 3 is likely to feature some kind of online pass, the game’s executive producer Patrick Bach has confirmed to GamerZines.

He said that players will “probably” have to register a code included along with new copies of the game in order to access its multiplayer modes.

However, he wasn’t sure if we can call it an online pass:

“I don’t think it’s an online pass, I think it’s our own backend. I’m not sure I want to call our system an online pass.”

When asked if EA was demanding second-hand copy buyers to pay to play online, Bach said: “I think we are.”

He was also quick to defend the company’s move, and termed it as something which would help it pay for servers:

“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,” said Bach.

!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.”

Latest

10 Comments

  1. GrimRita

    Well publishers hate the second hand market and when games finally all go digital, it probably wont be so much of a worry as players wont be able to trade their games.

    But his arguement is blown out of the water by stating that “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.”

    But if someone trades that game in (this case BF3), they have lost a player, who is then gained, if someone picks up a second hand copy. So really, its total bullshit coming out of his mouth as there wont be an increase in numbers at all.

    #1 3 years ago
  2. albo88

    I don’t think it’s an online pass, I think it’s an online pass.

    i hate when peoples try to fool us
    who in the hell is asking them to make a Battlelog?
    as far as for EA servers they are shit
    they cant even handle a beta not a full game
    always the private servers FTW

    #2 3 years ago
  3. Noodlemanny

    @albo88
    Yeah but they don’t know that the first person’s sold their game do they. The first they’ll know about it is that they haven’t been online for so many month. Anyway they still have to make a account for both people which costs money for both but only gets money from one. The gaming industry is having trouble at the moment and although DICE isn’t it’s EA policy and there are plenty of games EA has published that did have trouble.
    And ultimately the more money a game earns the bigger the budget for its sequel and I’m really, really fine with the ten buck scheme.

    #3 3 years ago
  4. pukem0n

    why dont u make a law that 33% of a used game sale go to the developer and we can get rid of those stupid online passes?
    they’ll propably would keep them because they are greedy, but still, do it! ^^

    #4 3 years ago
  5. DarkElfa

    …or just end second hand game sales. Though to be honest, Many people wouldn’t buy games if they new they couldn’t trade them in when they were done with them which in turn leads to more game sales. Hard to say.

    #5 3 years ago
  6. DSB

    “We’re gonna use an online pass system…. But here’s the thing…. We won’t call it an online pass system”.

    Man, that is such a load off my mind. I mean if they were gonna implement an online pass system, and actually call it an online pass system, that would be like… Completely accurate.. And I would be totally incensed by that.

    I’m so glad that we have people like that who are unwilling to answer questions, but also not capable enough to actually avoid answering them.

    I feel for you, multi-billion dollar corporations. We know that reselling your games is such a huge drain on your no-doubt strained economy. I mean, 750 million dollars is always good to have around in case you see something you want, or just feel like handing out bonuses for some much needed downsizing. It’s so hard on the executive. By all means, charge away, we’ll accept any excuse to charge for something that we’ve been offered for free for the last two decades.

    I mean sure, bandwidth is cheaper than it’s ever been, but that’s all the more reason to charge for it, right?

    Here’s an idea, why not close down some online components on your old games while you’re at it? Oh right, you’re already at it. Carry on then!

    #6 3 years ago
  7. gsxrlove

    “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” – what a load of BS. Who is he trying to fool? This goes in the same basket as the non reset-able Resident Evil Mercenaries for 3DS.

    #7 3 years ago
  8. Phoenixblight

    @7

    “This goes in the same basket as the non reset-able Resident Evil Mercenaries for 3DS.”

    Uh No it isn’t. Does it effect you if you buy the game new? No it doesn’t. The only people that are whining about this are people that are planning on getting second hand, well you paid for it cheaper so stop your whining. What capcom did was make a game not replayable nor were you able to trade it in.

    #8 3 years ago
  9. gsxrlove

    @#8
    I can appreciate your point of view but I do find it hard to give much sympathy for them for making it harder when you hear about the sales figures these games create and also how it effects what the game disc is worth if you want to sell it afterwards. At the end of the day however if you don’t think the game is worth the $$$ you simply wont buy it.

    #9 3 years ago
  10. Phoenixblight

    @9

    Yeah you see the numbers of the games being sold but do you know the cost of making such game. Let says BF3 they made a complete new Engine 100 million then they made a game with said engine 30-60 million to develop than you have EA marketing it which can be about the same amount as the development cost. SO 200 Million lets assume. The retailers take 30%, then the cost of maintaining all the servers, etc, etc.

    This is the reason why Publishers don’t invest in a new IP its too much of a risk to throw down the drain if it flops. SO yes they are protective about their things. 2nd hand sales is 2 billion dollar industry. The publishers don’t like companies like Gamestop getting paid for selling their games second hand.

    #10 3 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.