My birthday was last month and my brother forgot to buy me a present so today we went to GameStop, Best Buy, and a few other places until I finally decided that I wanted to get Battlefield 3. I had not gotten it yet simply because I wanted the price to go down a bit, EA to work out the bugs, get more of a sense as to whether the game was any good or not, among other reasons. But I finally got it.
My brother and I decided to just go for the used version since it's always typically been the same. I can do without the special add-ons and such that come with brand new packaging and GameStop has a great return policy on used games. Luckily the guy at the front counter played Battlefield 3 before and told us about the fact that buying the used version will cause us to have to buy the online pass if we want to play online. So instead we went with the brand new one.
I remember back when all this started with Homefront. Not only was the game terrible, but I was wondering what happened to the multiplayer and why it was so lame without this "code". Ever since then, I've seen more and more video game publishers add these things into games where you must either buy the game brand new or purchase an online pass.
Seriously, how dumb is this? You pay $40+ for a game and find out that you have to pay an additional price to play online. But this post isn't so much about the greed involved as much as what has happened to multiplayer over the years.
My brother and I always loved playing multiplayer games since we were very young playing on the OG Super Nintendo. When we later got the Gamecube and original Xbox, we played even more games that were multiplayer. If a game didn't have multiplayer, it was usually not one of our choices to buy. Even still to this day, our choices often revolve around this. He has an Xbox 360 as do I (plus my Playstation 3 and other game systems) but we still look for games that are local (local meaning using one console but two or more controllers) multiplayer. Online is cool, but sometimes it's nice to play with a friendly face and not have to purchase two copies of the same game. We have done that in the past for games such as Crackdown and Crackdown 2 where it was great by itself but even better together and we played enough individually that we got our use out of each copy. But that is rare.
Most of the games that I pick up nowadays, I toss off to the side because they lack local multiplayer.
I understand that most people probably don't enjoy local multiplayer as much as they do online and that the companies make more because more copies are bought, but there are people like me that do care about little things like local multiplayer.
What are your thoughts on local multiplayer and multiplayer in general? Do you think that things are better than they were before or we're going in the opposite direction?
- ► 2016 (33)
- ► 2015 (25)
- ► 2014 (57)
- ► 2013 (166)
- Sonic Memories
- Sprint Service Review
- The Cloud: Who Owns the Uploaded Material?
- VHBL Files Released for Super Collapse 3
- VHBL Title Name Released!!
- Props to the Little Guys Out There!
- New Interface for Blogger Starts Today
- PlayStation Suite Open Beta Out Now
- Demon Hunter: True Defiance (Review)
- Review; Heavy Fire: Afghanistan for PlayStation 3 ...
- Fake YouTube Spam E-mails
- 1.67 VHBL is Available!
- Wololo.net is Swarming
- Tupac Live 2012
- Rejoice 1.67 PS Vita Users!
- Grand Theft Auto IV: San Andreas Mod
- Playstation Orbis/PS4
- Spring Sale Games Marked at Food Prices!! (PC Down...
- Thoughts on Camping?
- Caine's Arcade
- Google vs. Bing
- Mulitplayer Anyone?!?!
- Happy Easter/Resurrection Day/Passover/etc.
- ndh777's Interests (Technology)
- HTC's New Device?
- ▼ April (26)