We Recommend By ZergNet


  • BladedFalcon - January 27, 2012 5:54 p.m.

    Ugh... Well this is annoying. I mean, i SUPPOSE if those quests aren't really essential to the main storyline, you could just think of it as DLC that's free for one time buyers. But still, it DOES feel like they are crossing a line they shouldn't cross. I was kinda looking forward to this game, and i might still get it. But I'll have to think if I really want to encourage this kind of tactic by getting the game...
  • chriszewski - January 28, 2012 2:50 p.m.

    I agree but i hate how we have to vote with are wallet not based on a game's quality, but on publisher's decisions. Invasive DRM, Paid-for on-disc content, etc. It hurts a Dev more than a Pub in the long run.
  • Gex4212 - January 27, 2012 5:38 p.m.

    Well I buy games used because there are some game that are "iffy" or when there is a bunch of releases and the game takes a backseat to the other games I really want. Most of my purchases are usually new and if you buy guys new the whole Online pass thing should not effect you. There are people who solely rely on games being used and purchases them. I have nothing against it but its also on the rise and yes devs are losing a lot of money. 1 copy of MW3 could be in the cycle of purchased and return over 10's if not hundreds of times during the 9 months or more of its popularity. I understand the whole economy thing but if you really want a game you save up for it. Thats why we learn about games months in advance before release. Whether is online or offline the devs can opt to do whatever they want with their game. You only pay for a portion of the game and you will only get to play a portion of the game.
  • amagasakiseb - January 28, 2012 9:12 a.m.

    if one copy of MW3 was bought and returned so many times doesn't that tell you about the peoples' thoughts on the game? Perhaps they thought it was a pile of shit. Perhaps they didn't buy into the multiplayer being "new" and so the 9 people after the new buyer didn't feel it necessary to shell out the full cash for it? This is fine if it's just ONE copy of the game but if it happens on more than a few hundred or thousand occasions then I think Activision and its goblins better start looking at their game for huge flaws rather than looking at us to give them more money. True, I don't like the Modern Borefare series except for the first MW (COD4) and yes this is a good excuse for me to bash it but, this notion holds true for all of the games. Nevertheless (judging by Modern Borefare sales in general) there are PLENTY of people who buy/bought the game brand new so regardless of whether they resold the game or not, I would reckon that Activision made its money back EASILY. And also by your logic of: "you only pay for a portion of the game and you will only get to play a portion of the game" Are you going to take out the ending or the middle of a movie when its resold second hand? Are you going to take off the wheels of a car when someone sells it second hand? Are you going to tear out 20% of a books pages before someone has chance to sell it second hand?
  • griffinkat - January 27, 2012 5:33 p.m.

    Yeah this sucks but didn't Batman do the same thing already? Wasn't the cat woman levels all locked and needing a code (free with new games) to play her part of the story? And didn't Fallout new vagus have missons/rooms you couldn't enter unless you had a new copy? Why is this a shocker now? They have and will keep doing this. still sucks. >.>
  • Darth Olds - January 27, 2012 4:56 p.m.

    I think it is a troubling sign and a potential future where no one owns anything they pay for. Perhaps some people could find a link between this and Communist theory of everyone owning everything and nothing. It also denies those without the internet, which is more than most believe, their full purchase. If EA was a clothing manufacture, for example, it would be like them saying "We will sell you this shirt, but if you want both sleeves you have to go to Europe and get our factory to sew it on for you." Sadly I think this trend will continue despite the whole idea of "voting with you wallet", maybe not in this form but in some way. After all first it was Batman: Arkham Citywith the Catwoman story line and now this.
  • obviouslyadouche - January 27, 2012 4:54 p.m.

    Why can they do this, online is slightly more understandable but locking out pieces of the single player should not happen, how about instead of taking away entire quests if you don't buy it new, you give people free dlc for buying it new, or even discounted dlc.
  • Cyberninja - January 27, 2012 5:47 p.m.

    isnt this basically the same thing as what you said already?
  • EwoksTasteLikeChicken - January 27, 2012 4:49 p.m.

    Definitely a troubling sign of things to come. If EA is starting to require online passes for single player content (like the mercenary mission in Mass Effect 2) it's only a matter of time before more publishers start this trend. I understand supporting the developer and stuff like that, but if it weren't for GameStop or other used game sellers, I wouldn't be able to play nearly as many games. The economy is still pretty shit, and it just makes me mad when I hear about online passes being required to enjoy the full game.

Showing 41-49 of 49 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.