Battlefield 3’s used game prevention vs. MW3 freedom

By Updated on

Gaming is not cheap when you complete games pretty fast, and unless the online play is extremely special, you’ll almost certainly let the game collect dust with so much competition in almost every genre. When this happens some of us have a better idea, rather than let games collect dust we get some money towards our next purchase by trading the game in.

Developers are not that keen on people buying second hand games, the main reason is the loss of money from used games, although some people will disagree and point to DLC as a way for extra money from used games. It’s rumored that Battlefield 3 will feature a little used game prevention, which will be thanks to an “Online Pass system” that is a way for the developers to get money for server costs from second hand buyers. While there is no confirmation on how this could be implemented, do you think it’s fair for those that buy a cheaper used game to pay for a code to get online access?

Also See: COD MW3 is $20 on Xbox 360 today

We’ve heard from Activision before on the idea of charging for online play, and it has been clear to this point. They don’t intend on charging for Call of Duty multiplayer, even with second hand game buyers. Some people feel this gives COD an advantage, do you agree? BF3 has entered into full hype mode, with online discussions focused on the better graphics and advanced destruction, which are hoped by some to help the Battlefield series gain market share.

While Battlefield gamers feel comfortable with codes in the box, how will Call of Duty gamers feel that make the jump to Battlefield 3, especially if they buy a used copy? It’s our view that those behind each game want to earn money in different ways from the player, Activision are known for this with DLC that comes out in what seems just a few days after the last DLC.

Do you buy many games second hand? If so, how do you feel about this news and what if Call of Duty went the same way in time?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000769591011 Nick Anteau

    if they start doing this, then i can guarantee that i won’t be playing. i’ll play halo or gears of war or battlefront rather than having to pay for online service. if a monthly service is started, then they must think we gamers have unlimited pockets or some crap.

    • Bees

      You won’t play a game because the devs want to get paid? LOL

      Many other games do this already, it’ll soon be the norm to require an online pass to be able to play online. EA started it, will continue it, and other publishers will be soon to follow if they haven’t already. You should be happy they aren’t charging you an extra $10-$15 on top of the already pricey $60 for a new game. You’re still saving money by buying used and paying for the pass… it’s just a matter of how long you want for the price to come down. With games such as BF3 and MW3 you can sure as s**t bet they won’t be coming down anytime soon.

      • EA like always

        It EA it like FIFA to play online u need a online pass!! It cost about 10 bucks but either way that sucks cause alot of people get second hand game and all ya know u rather but a game for like 20 bucks than 60!! Still kind of stupid

  • Ryan

    Its only those who buy the game second hand whp will have to pay a nominal fee for the online features. I can understand why games which are bought predominantly for the online gaming are implimenting this kind of restriction. EA are gonna do this with all their games. They do seem to fleece the average gamer. What about attracting new gamers to the Battlefield series? They wont be able to rent to try put the multiplayer. This is probably why every big game seems to have an open beta these days!

  • gay

    It does make sense and it’s better then stopping the player from plaing online. I just hope that retailers would warn or include the online pass into the second hand games, otherwise a bunch of people would rage at EA.

  • MINTYleaf

    EA isn’t stupid. They may use the online pass but even with a used copy they won’t prevent multiplayer. They will probably only restrict it (limiting exp level, unlockables etc.) as they did with MoH (while the multiplayer was bad, they did do SOME things right). And they only charge for the pass if you didn’t buy a new copy of the game. Monthly payment for multiplayer is not a threat. At least for now.

  • OompaLoompa

    So does this mean my brother has to buy an online pass to play on the same console as me? Or does the online pass work for the whole console itself?

    • Bees

      I’m 90% sure it’s linked to the account/console. So as long as your (assuming the main) account remains on the console all users should be able to play just fine.

  • Bees

    Not a big deal. I almost always buy new anyways, you gotta pay to play! Why should someone getting the game for $25 (with no money going to the publisher and developer) get the same (online) experience as me paying full price?

  • Thataboy85

    The time and effort these developers put into these games, years in development before the game even hits retail, yes I understand this and I don’t have a problem with them charging second hand buyers,they have to get paid or you won’t see these type of epic games! That’s why I always buy new!!!

  • Jibbajabba

    @bees Surely if a game is older the value must drop as the demand drops for the title. What if you bought a movie second hand and couldnt watch the last 30 mins until you bought a pass. The loss from 2nd hand sales should be, and probably is, written into the initial cost. Hence why not all companies have passes but choose to make from dlc. Why do the few champion the big companies to fleece the poorer people, not all can afford brand new and these companies already make huge profits. Ive never heard of EA saying they cant afford to brong a game put because too many people have bought second hand.