Electronic Arts Dickhead Alert

[Renegade_Turner]

Warning: Massive Amounts Of Pompous Money-Grubbing Imminent

[Ragdollmaster]

I'm not surprised after they did this with the BC2 DLC (hence why I used a keygen to unlock VIP and Vietnam content ) EA are generally dicks.

[Renegade_Turner]

Well, it's not the same at all really. Not having the VIP code didn't cut you of from multiplayer. And Vietnam was DLC. That's understandable. Making it so that people can't play multiplayer AT ALL without a code (especially when the biggest appeal of fighting games is playing with another person) is what's so incredible.

[pookaguy]

EA is a complete and utter phaliure.

[underthedeep]

i am going to hold back all my rage which could be a potential 3 paragraph rant and say one very politically incorrect word to describe this.



gay.

[Dudeman]

EA is a complete and utter phaliure.

Would that be a combination of phallus and failure?

Or are you just reveling in the phun of replacing f with ph?

[Endoperez]

1) This game is published by Warner Bros. EA has nothing to do with it.

2) It doesn't cut you away from multiplayer, just ONLINE multiplayer. You can still play it with friends who come over. When I last played these games, that was the main draw.

3) There is a two-day demo for online play, for every user. It could be a bit longer, IMO, like 5 days, and it should be possible to divide it over multiple days so that you can try it once, practice for a few days, and then try online again. That's my only problem with this system, really - two days is way too short of a time, especially if it's two consecutive days.

[Zhukov]

Let me guess, the Mortal Kombat thing?

*goes to click link*

EDIT: Damn I'm good.

Y'know, I would be fine with this... if they reduced the standard price by $10.

Luckily I wasn't planning on buying the game anyway. So I don't have the degree of personal investment required to get a good rage going.

[Renegade_Turner]

1) This game is published by Warner Bros. EA has nothing to do with it.

2) It doesn't cut you away from multiplayer, just ONLINE multiplayer. You can still play it with friends who come over. When I last played these games, that was the main draw.

3) There is a two-day demo for online play, for every user. It could be a bit longer, IMO, like 5 days, and it should be possible to divide it over multiple days so that you can try it once, practice for a few days, and then try online again. That's my only problem with this system, really - two days is way too short of a time, especially if it's two consecutive days.

Haha, whoops. I don't know where EA came into my head. Whatever, Warner Bros. are cunts.

Online multiplayer is VERY important. You don't always have someone over to play these games, and the friends I know who are heavy into Street Fighter IV and Marvel Vs. Capcom 3 would be severely pissed off if there was no online multiplayer. The people who excel at the games need to go online to find a contest. I've a friend Mark, none of us have ever beaten him at a fighting game. I don't play fighting games, but some of the others dabble in them, and they find it impossible to even come close. If there was no online he'd be very bored...

My only problem with this system is that it's wrong and it shouldn't be happening.

[Endoperez]

My only problem with this system is that it's wrong and it shouldn't be happening.[/color][/b]

To me the reason sounds more like "no way am I going to pay an extra 10 bucks". I see nothing wrong with developers and publishers getting money from used game sales. n fact, I think it's good that this is now starting to happen, although I still have some problems with the way the limits are enforced, like the fact that the free pass only lasts for two days in this case.

[Ozymandias]

You think it's good that you have to start spending money on things that, in the past, were completely free?

I'm confused.

This is why I'm not a huge fan of Xbox Live.

[Endoperez]

You think it's good that you have to start spending money on things that, in the past, were completely free?

I'm confused.

I think it's good that the companies who create games get money, when people buy the games they have made. Don't you?

[Zhukov]

You think it's good that you have to start spending money on things that, in the past, were completely free?

I'm confused.

I think it's good that the companies who create games get money, when people buy the games they have made. Don't you?

Then go donate some of your money to Warner Bros. I hear they're really struggling for cash right now.

Also, do the same thing if you ever buy a second hand car. Also, be sure to pay the original architects and builders of any homes you buy.

[Endoperez]

Then go donate some of your money to Warner Bros. I hear they're really struggling for cash right now.

Also, do the same thing if you ever buy a second hand car. Also, be sure to pay the original architects and builders of any homes you buy.

I'm not a car maker, an architect or a builder. I am, however, studying 3D graphics with a focus on games. I'm not saying everyone should like it, I'm saying I happen to like it, and see some upsides to it others might not appreciate as much as I do.

Cars and houses aren't really a good comparison, because they're in a whole different price category and stay good for much longer. Best comparison to games is fashionable clothing, IMO. Random rambling:

Both clothes and games could be a bit on the expensive side, compared to its practical value (compare plain black t-shirt to a black t-shirt with your favourite band's logo), but much of the value is in having stuff similar to what your pals have and other social reasons. Different people have different tastes and preferences, both for games and for clothing. Both might be outdated in a year or two, but some articles become classics and stay relevant for years. Buying them second hand is a common practice. Illegal counterfeits are common and much cheaper than the real thing.

From the creators' side, it's not that expensive to create more articles if there's demand. The shelf-life of any single piece of clothing/single game is kind of short, but there are some types of clothes/games you can always find everywhere (jeans, FPS games) with a dozen different variations.

[Renegade_Turner]

I'm not a car maker, an architect or a builder. I am, however, studying 3D graphics with a focus on games.

I'm sorry, that's the weakest and most self-centred argument I've ever heard from you.

Cars and houses aren't really a good comparison, because they're in a whole different price category and stay good for much longer.

I'm not buying this. Are automobile manufacturers and housing developers less entitled to proceeds from further sales of the cars and houses they make if game developers should be entitled to proceeds from further sales of their games? I don't understand your logic. Please explain this. Houses and cars stay in good condition for longer than games? I don't see how. Have you ever bought a second-hand car? There's always problems occurring, different niggly faults with the cars cropping up. Surely you see how backwards your argument is. You can't have one rule for one set of goods and different rule for all the others.

What if someone buys the game second-hand and there's no notification that they'll have to pay more money to use the good they've purchased? I'm pretty sure there's laws against similar things, at least in Ireland.

An example of something with a similar aspect is if someone has, say, a swimming pool, and there's no sign outside notifying you of a certain regulation to do with your belongings, but then there is a sign in the dressing rooms, after you've already paid entry, notifying you of such regulations. In Ireland that's illegal. All information has to be notified before paid entry to the service. I see parallels between that and this. How are they going to make sure that people are aware of the limitations of the good they've purchased? Would it be okay if you bought a second-hand car and weren't disclosed some material faults with the vehicle?