{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/24/2013 12:20:23 AM
7
EA are probably pissed at Microsoft
I remember when EA said they were scrapping the online passes just before the new consoles were announced. At first I remember thinking it was great but, knowing EA, thought they must have some sort of scheme which probably tied with the new console.
Sure enough xbox announced we can't share and trade games with everyone so the online pass wasn't needed.
Now that microsoft changed their minds, and all games (including ones from EA) on xbox can be shared, traded and played online with anyone, I wonder if EA will also do a u turn with their online passes or come up with a new scheme.
Perhaps I'm being a bit negative towards EA, but come on, it's EA.
-
1 ReplyDon't care. EA games are shit.
-
Does this policy not apply to X360? I think they may have done something for the fans for once. Unless they judged X360 games an acceptable loss
-
2 RepliesThey punched back with 80$ games and it hurts.
-
2 Replies>Hating EA because it's popular. What is this r/gaming? That place is a giant circlejerk
-
2 RepliesClose, but not quite, it was never going to be replaced by Microsoft's system simply because the PS4 was never going to do it so you'd only have DRM on half of your console sales, that's just pointless from a business perspective. No, the idea is now to switch to Microtransactions, recoup their losses there instead, so that's fun, all because some people wanted $5 off at Gamestop...
-
I don't know, actually. There's validity to what you're saying but at the same time EA appears to have got the memo. They fired their CEO and they're acknowledging that they have a serious PR problem. Getting rid of online passes bought them some goodwill they desperately needed.
-
You're actually not that far off. The only reason why publishers like EA opted for online passes was because game sales revenue wasn't meeting the goals to become marginally profitable. People call this nickel and diming or eye gouging, but it's more along the lines of making up for lost sales thanks to outside revenue circles created by retailers like GameStop and excluding publishers altogether. DRM on the xbox one was the first step to fixing all this. It would have been a considerably better environment for developer's futures, for publishers, for consumers, and gamers, all at once. Development studios would get more chances than being closed out without notice. You can't excuse a bad game, but you can always get a second chance. Publishers would see increased revenue. A sale would be a sale, no matter how low prices dipped. This would have allowed them to fund current studios, or open new studio branches. Consumers would benefit with lower prices brought on by a wider game distribution via redeemable code licenses among different retailers with unlimited stock; generating competition and potential sales outside microsofts own store. And gamers would benefit with fresh IPs in the coming years thanks to the newly opened studios, instead of seeing the same "sure thing" publishers resort to, to make guaranteed money (I don't need to remind anyone how many Call of Duty games have been released). All that aside, I wouldn't blame EA to retract that information and not only reinstate online passes but also make them more expensive.it only makes sense if we're just going back to the same thing we've done this generation.
