The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
EA's newly released Medal Of Honor is the first game I have played which does not allow online play simply from the playing the game from the disc.Each copy sold comes with a unique code which must be registered with EA in order to unlock all online features of the game (that is all Multiplayer modes as well as the Tier 1 feature) .So if you have bought the game second hand or rented it these features are not available.I believe you can buy a code from EA but this cost would then need to be added to cost of your second hand copy which I imagine would make it virtually the same price as buying a new one.
What do you guys think of this practice ?,is it fair ? or do you think that EA have a damn cheek to seriously devalue the trade in value of a game you may have paid around £40 for and have either completed or didn't really care for ?.In the case of Medal Of Honor it really does restrict what modes of the game you can play,it's basically just the single player campaign (which I believe is extremely short) that is available,everything else is locked.
If this works for EA surely other developers will follow suit ?.Would boycotting these titles perhaps make EA rethink their strategy ?.In the past I have heard games developers likening the effect of the sale of second hand games to that of piracy as in they do not get any revenue from it.If this practice does become the norm should the retail price of games drop in order to compensate for the fact that they are going to be worth less when you come to trade in or resell them ?.
Be interested to know what the peeps on here think of this.
What do you guys think of this practice ?,is it fair ? or do you think that EA have a damn cheek to seriously devalue the trade in value of a game you may have paid around £40 for and have either completed or didn't really care for ?.In the case of Medal Of Honor it really does restrict what modes of the game you can play,it's basically just the single player campaign (which I believe is extremely short) that is available,everything else is locked.
If this works for EA surely other developers will follow suit ?.Would boycotting these titles perhaps make EA rethink their strategy ?.In the past I have heard games developers likening the effect of the sale of second hand games to that of piracy as in they do not get any revenue from it.If this practice does become the norm should the retail price of games drop in order to compensate for the fact that they are going to be worth less when you come to trade in or resell them ?.
Be interested to know what the peeps on here think of this.
Page:
Apparently you can trial any EA game online for 7 days before needing to enter/buy a code.I tried this last night and it does work,not sure why it wouldn't allow me on Medal Of Honor last week ?.I was playing it a couple of days before the official release date so maybe they don't allow online play until then ?.At least you can try the the game before having to buy/redeem a code so that is something I suppose.
Having looked into this a bit more, it's going to strengthen the rental market. Basically rentals are going to come with a weeklong free online period, which for me at least totally removes my desire to buy the 90% of games I can finish in that time.
In addition to that, there's been talk of the game companies selling online licences to the shops. Now this is a move I don't understand as while it's getting the developers in on the 2nd hand market, it would still be significantly undercutting their main business. It's certainly the best outcome for the customers though in what is a bad situation.
In addition to that, there's been talk of the game companies selling online licences to the shops. Now this is a move I don't understand as while it's getting the developers in on the 2nd hand market, it would still be significantly undercutting their main business. It's certainly the best outcome for the customers though in what is a bad situation.
To be fair, consumers have more entitlement than developers. Consumers are what enable developers to make a living. There are loads of rival developers willing to do what consumers actually want (in this case, include multiplayer without code usage). It's best not to bite the hand that feeds you by annoying consumers with stupid codes...
Garin wrote:
You're right it doesnt add up. The problem is that consumer maths involves a sense of entitlement that has no bearing on reality. :)
The reality is that currently other games developers are not enforcing this practice so they are more far more likely to get my business.If other developers follow suit then fair enough,but while this is not the case EA would need to release something pretty spectacular to make me want to part with my hard earned cash.
You're right it doesnt add up. The problem is that consumer maths involves a sense of entitlement that has no bearing on reality. :)
The reality is that currently other games developers are not enforcing this practice so they are more far more likely to get my business.If other developers follow suit then fair enough,but while this is not the case EA would need to release something pretty spectacular to make me want to part with my hard earned cash.
Sonic Chris wrote:
Just read some more below. Multiplayer should most definitely be part of the package. For games like CoD, where multiplayer makes up about 80% of the games life IMO, you'd be spending £45 (on release) for just the singleplayer essentially. Mixed with the fact that there will be oodles of DLC, aswell as XBL fees for some, it just doesn't add up.
You're right it doesnt add up. The problem is that consumer maths involves a sense of entitlement that has no bearing on reality. :)
Just read some more below. Multiplayer should most definitely be part of the package. For games like CoD, where multiplayer makes up about 80% of the games life IMO, you'd be spending £45 (on release) for just the singleplayer essentially. Mixed with the fact that there will be oodles of DLC, aswell as XBL fees for some, it just doesn't add up.
You're right it doesnt add up. The problem is that consumer maths involves a sense of entitlement that has no bearing on reality. :)
Just read some more below. Multiplayer should most definitely be part of the package. For games like CoD, where multiplayer makes up about 80% of the games life IMO, you'd be spending £45 (on release) for just the singleplayer essentially. Mixed with the fact that there will be oodles of DLC, aswell as XBL fees for some, it just doesn't add up.
Although you can't blame the developers. If you agree with all of the above, there's one thing you can do: don't buy the game.
Although you can't blame the developers. If you agree with all of the above, there's one thing you can do: don't buy the game.
I'm not suggesting developers are swimming in money just that I believe that £40 is more than enough to pay for any game and after paying that amount of money I strongly believe I should be free to play all aspects of that game and then be able to sell/trade it on at a reasonable price if I so wish.
Take Modern Warfare 2 for example I paid £45 for that game and then bought both map packs at a cost of around £10 each,that's £65 I have shelled out on one game.Is this not enough for that games developers ?.As mentioned,due to EA's practice I have decided not to buy Medal Of Honor (which I was going to),so that's £65 of my earned cash to Activision and sod all to EA.I'm asking myself which developer has got this right ?.
Take Modern Warfare 2 for example I paid £45 for that game and then bought both map packs at a cost of around £10 each,that's £65 I have shelled out on one game.Is this not enough for that games developers ?.As mentioned,due to EA's practice I have decided not to buy Medal Of Honor (which I was going to),so that's £65 of my earned cash to Activision and sod all to EA.I'm asking myself which developer has got this right ?.
I think multiplayer is part of the game package. When I buy a game disc, I expect everything to be on there ready to use, seeing as I bought the thing. This is why I detest DLC.
They've shot themselves in the foot, because alot of people will be put off buying/selling it because of this code.
They've shot themselves in the foot, because alot of people will be put off buying/selling it because of this code.
dav2612 wrote:
I'm not sure at what point I was pretending developers are swimming in money, I am a developer myself, I know what it is like.
You werent, Pete was though. I wrote a reply and got distracted and by the time I hit post you'd posted. :)
I'm not sure at what point I was pretending developers are swimming in money, I am a developer myself, I know what it is like.
You werent, Pete was though. I wrote a reply and got distracted and by the time I hit post you'd posted. :)
Garin wrote:
And pretending game developers are swimming in money isnt helpful. You might want to look at when EA last posted a profit. Even so, game development is high risk. Naturally the rewards are great if a game is successful. And if some of those risks werent paying off then we wouldnt get new investment in games.
I'm not sure at what point I was pretending developers are swimming in money, I am a developer myself, I know what it is like.
And consumers aren't also swimming in money which is why an online charge will feel like a second charge to some and why some people react strongly against it.
I'm not against the idea, I understand why they are doing it. Naturally they want a share of the 2nd hand market but perhaps they need to look at why it has become so big. Is an online pass the best incentive to buying brand new? I don't play online much so it changes nothing towards my pre-owned shopping.
And pretending game developers are swimming in money isnt helpful. You might want to look at when EA last posted a profit. Even so, game development is high risk. Naturally the rewards are great if a game is successful. And if some of those risks werent paying off then we wouldnt get new investment in games.
I'm not sure at what point I was pretending developers are swimming in money, I am a developer myself, I know what it is like.
And consumers aren't also swimming in money which is why an online charge will feel like a second charge to some and why some people react strongly against it.
I'm not against the idea, I understand why they are doing it. Naturally they want a share of the 2nd hand market but perhaps they need to look at why it has become so big. Is an online pass the best incentive to buying brand new? I don't play online much so it changes nothing towards my pre-owned shopping.
Page: