Battlefield 3 Online pass - Anyone have an extra?

[AquaParade]

This thread has basically become a thread to discuss the Used-Game sale's market, Publisher's response, etc.

[Brodie]

Why would anyone who purchased the game have an extra? No one bought that game for the campaign, and the rest cannot function without the code.

I'd understand if it was a game that had a functionality code that didn't hinder the main weight of the game, i.e., the Batman/Catwoman stuff, etc.

Why would you buy it used knowing that it requires a code? Usually to get one it costs more than the difference to buy the game new.

That war is almost nonexistent now, considering gamestop got the right to print online passes for a slew of games that require them.

[Peanut]

Ugh. Really?

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Brodie

That war is almost nonexistent now, considering gamestop got the right to print online passes for a slew of games that require them.

Is that so? Haven't heard anyone mention that...

It definitely has not gone into action yet, so I would say it's still exists, actually.

[Peanut]

It existed for the extent of Batman Arkham City's release window, which also probably had something to do with half the people buying that game getting no code in-box. That'll probably be the extent of getting free online codes in-store and as EA is basically doing it to try and curb any and all possible pre-owned purchases, I doubt they'll let Gamestop print online codes, unless they're charging them a HEFTY amount for it. An amount that probably well exceeds what Gamestop is willing to pay.

Buying a used copy of a game that requires an online code to use, particularly a game whose only positive is its online play, is pretty god damn stupid. Unless you get the game for $25-$30 less than a new price. At least then your $10-$15 code purchase won't completely negate your "savings" of which there is little in used copies of new games.

And the "war" is nonexistent because people with a brain stopped buying used games that require online passes as soon as they heard it was happening. And anyone over the age of 20 probably stopped getting raped by Gamestops increasingly horrible trade-in prices long before that.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Peanut

It existed for the extent of Batman Arkham City's release window, which also probably had something to do with half the people buying that game getting no code in-box. That'll probably be the extent of getting free online codes in-store and as EA is basically doing it to try and curb any and all possible pre-owned purchases, I doubt they'll let Gamestop print online codes, unless they're charging them a HEFTY amount for it. An amount that probably well exceeds what Gamestop is willing to pay.

Buying a used copy of a game that requires an online code to use, particularly a game whose only positive is its online play, is pretty god damn stupid. Unless you get the game for $25-$30 less than a new price. At least then your $10-$15 code purchase won't completely negate your "savings" of which there is little in used copies of new games.

And the "war" is nonexistent because people with a brain stopped buying used games that require online passes as soon as they heard it was happening. And anyone over the age of 20 probably stopped getting raped by Gamestops increasingly horrible trade-in prices long before that.

You are ever so subtle, Peanut, ;]

Yeah, the game had the pass code still available in the box. I went out on a limb, hoping that the code had not been redeemed. I thought it possible that the previous owner may have bought the game for the campaign, and traded it in quickly. I took a chance and lost. Not quite what I would call "brainless", but why not?

Either way, i don't think the battle over used-games sales is over just because one company might have taken a small chip out of gamestop's used sales. Sure, no one is buying Battlefield, Crysis 2, or one of their many sports games used, but it's naive to think thats the end of publishers "battling" with gamestop for revenue on those used game sales. Not to mention, people like you and I who should know better, don't really represent a huge number of gamestop customers. I can assure you plenty of people have bought these games, having no clue that the online pass existed. It's just not something the casual audience is accustomed to.

[Peanut]

It's not over, it just never existed. It's not a war if one side has already won. Gamestop continues to rake in cash, the big companies are trying their best to stop people from trading games/playing them used and they're failing. The only way the game developers win is when everything goes digital, which won't happen anytime soon. Short of cutting huge chunks out of their games via online codes and selling codes for used copies at an insane markup, there's little to nothing they can do about it.

And again, the ones who know better won't care either way and who gives a f*ck about the morons who get suckered into spending $5 less on a game and losing $15 worth of value. This stuff doesn't have any impact on me, because I know better than to even walk into a Gamestop, let alone use/lose my money there.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Peanut

It's not over, it just never existed. It's not a war if one side has already won. Gamestop continues to rake in cash, the big companies are trying their best to stop people from trading games/playing them used and they're failing. The only way the game developers win is when everything goes digital, which won't happen anytime soon. Short of cutting huge chunks out of their games via online codes and selling codes for used copies at an insane markup, there's little to nothing they can do about it.

And again, the ones who know better won't care either way and who gives a f*ck about the morons who get suckered into spending $5 less on a game and losing $15 worth of value. This stuff doesn't have any impact on me, because I know better than to even walk into a Gamestop, let alone use/lose my money there.

I consider the battle ongoing personally. I don't think we've seen the end of publishers employing tactics and incentives that urge people to buy games new. That's all I'm saying - Online passes are an example of publishers trying to find ways to make people buy games new, as opposed to used, and trying to get some of that money back that they've been losing forever now to Gamestop.

On one hand you are saying that everyone knows not to buy games with online-passes in used condition - That would mean the online passes are doing their job, and the developers are getting bits of their money back.
But, you are also claiming that gamestop has already won and the dust has settled.

If everyone "with a brain" knows not to buy EA online games used, than wouldn't you agree that the online-pass tactic is doing it's job on the developers part?

[Peanut]

What I'm saying is there IS no war. The dust isn't settled because it was never disturbed to begin with. Like I said, when publishers start hiding huge chunks of games, or the entire thing, behind online passes, then there will be a war.

I don't want to get into any more cyclical f*cking arguments with you, so I'm just going to let this drop.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Peanut

What I'm saying is there IS no war. The dust isn't settled because it was never disturbed to begin with. Like I said, when publishers start hiding huge chunks of games, or the entire thing, behind online passes, then there will be a war.

I don't want to get into any more cyclical f*cking arguments with you, so I'm just going to let this drop.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/121/1217310p1.html

I beg to differ.

[Peanut]

Yes, reopen an old argument based on a rumor that popped up 3 days ago. One that has nothing to do with publishers either, which is what the entire thing was about. Tack on using IGN as a source of worthwhile information and you are batting 1,000.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Peanut

Yes, reopen an old argument based on a rumor that popped up 3 days ago. One that has nothing to do with publishers either, which is what the entire thing was about. Tack on using IGN as a source of worthwhile information and you are batting 1,000.

You missed the point. Fact or fiction, this article alone proves that there is an ongoing battle between publishers and the used-game market. Microsoft publishes games, Peanut...
The fact that article's like these are so huge is enough evidence that neither side has won. Used games still sell and publishers keep employing tacts to stop that.

You've already argued both sides in this very thread...

Originally Posted by Peanut

It's not over, it just never existed. It's not a war if one side has already won. Gamestop continues to rake in cash, the big companies are trying their best to stop people from trading games/playing them used and they're failing.

Originally Posted by Peanut

And the "war" is nonexistent because people with a brain stopped buying used games that require online passes as soon as they heard it was happening. And anyone over the age of 20 probably stopped getting raped by Gamestops increasingly horrible trade-in prices long before that.

[Peanut]

You never ****ing quit. This war doesn't exist until any of this **** comes true. If the 360x2 does this, yes there's a war. If publishers continue further down the catwoman AC rabbit hole, yes there's a war. Until either of these things happen it makes little to no difference. The reason these articles are so big is that it's a hot button issue. If anything involving used game sales or DRM is whispered, the games community explodes.

And yeah, MS publishes games, but people still need to buy their console to play used ones. I'm sure they don't give a **** if used game sales blow up as long as sale of their console goes along with it.

Now once dick tits replies with more ******** can someone just lock this thread? I'll let him get the last word in so he feels like he "won" this "argument" and maybe he'll stop stalking me.

[AquaParade]

Why would someone lock the thread just because you don't like how the discussion is going? Stalking you? It's a message board dude. A thread I created and returned to. You really have that big of an ego? On a forum? That's actually pretty funny. Now if you are going to reply - have some integrity. Your insult-filled posts really don't advance the conversation. You realize they are a waste of "breath" right? Maybe frame them in a more comedic way if you want them to have any sort of effect at all. I'm sure Krang would agree with that way before locking a thread because poor Peanut doesn't like it.



The war doesn't exist until ("any of this comes true") Microsoft consoles don't play used games? No Peanut. Thing's don't need to be that drastic for there to be a "war". If you prefer I'll call it a battle. Does that help you grasp the concept? When two sides are fighting on different sides of a rising issue, you have a "battle", or a "war". You are basically just debating the term "war", because there is no doubt that gamestop is trying to find ways to sell used-games (someone here mentioned gamestop trying to print ad codes - which prob isn't going to happen anyways) and that publishers are trying to stop used-game sales. Don't argue that point, Peanut. It's fact.

I'm just going to refer everyone to your two quotes I posted last night. That says it all.

[Peanut]

This thread needs to be locked because it has no value. It's you and I arguing about ****ing semantics, which is what every single one of our arguments come down to in the end. It's completely and utterly pointless.

[愛]

Good lord.