If you don't know yet EA and Epic games have decided to try to combat used games. How glad you asked Gears of War 2 if bought new will have a one time use code that will get you 5 maps from gears 1 for the mp, this being the only way to get them. NBA Live 2009 the DNA that will update everyday and make the game rosters current with real life yes you guessed it one time use code only with new game, on the other hand if you wait and buy it used it will only cost you $20 to get the daily update.

I hate EA and have yet to buy a EA made game since they bought Bioware. I will play them but EA won't get my money.

 I don't get why everyone hates EA. Bad Company is awesome and I can't wait for Dead Space!

So what is it about them that you don't like?

As for the used game deal, it doesn't really bother me I usally get the games new anyway.

The used game thing I can understand from there point of view.

The EA thing is this, money. When Bad Company was fisrt to come out they told everyone that if they didn't buy the gold edition those five extra guns were going to have to be bought at about $2 a piece. The closer it got to release they changed there minds (community response). Then factor in that if EA can't make a good game they buy a studio that can then run it in the ground. Bioware for example good reputation what does EA do with that. oh thats right puts Biowares name on the new Sonic RPG for ds, what a discrace. How many other game studios has EA bought and tried to bank off of there credibility, and when that don't work lets through millions at a game cause that will make it better.

There is a shrinking list of reasons to dislike EA but this does not make that list. They've slowly improved over the last year with some of their more questionable policies. Their sports titles have really started to separate themselves from the rest of the pack in the last two iterations or so. Dead Space looks like it may be awesome and they have not fucked up Rock Band through shady publishing practices (of course, NOT fucking something up is not the greatest achievement). However, I could do without them trying to buy up all the other companies.

There's nothing wrong with people selling their games and then others buying them used. At the same time, there is also nothing wrong with EA and other developers/publishers protecting their products and their profits through these tactics. This is so much better than the 3 install limit and other DRM protection procedures that have been used on some computer titles.

For example, with Epic, if you want the extra Gears maps, then reward the company who is providing them to you. Don't bitch about not getting free shit from a company who you don't want to support by buying their product used.

Sports titles great jump for them, how much competition is left after they started trying to buy all the rights? Then Rock Band to defend my comment on EA not being able to MAKE good games, granted you did say publishing in there.

If you read my 2nd post I said I didn't care about new or used, just trying to inform ppl that like to try to save a little money that they would be missing certain elements to the game if they tried to buy used.

PMH360:

 I don't get why everyone hates EA. Bad Company is awesome and I can't wait for Dead Space!

So what is it about them that you don't like?

As for the used game deal, it doesn't really bother me I usally get the games new anyway.

EA sucks............Bad Company however does not suck.............Dead Space will scary suck..........does dead space have coop?..........even the commercials for it scare me...............

TheHostileDwarf:

they have not fucked up Rock Band through shady publishing practices (of course, NOT fucking something up is not the greatest achievement).

Why does this always get a pass?  Isn't the biggest complaint with EA that they start whoring out half-assed sequels?

Rock Band 2 is the most half assed sequel ever created.  It's essentially a small patch for onlin world tour and a new set list.  Isn't that EXACTLY what people complain about EA doing?

vcize:

Rock Band 2 is the most half assed sequel ever created.  It's essentially a small patch for onlin world tour and a new set list.  Isn't that EXACTLY what people complain about EA doing?

Please. RB2 is well worth the money. What were you expecting a keytar? Rainbow Six 1.5 was the biggest scam ever.

BoomerBrian:

vcize:

Rock Band 2 is the most half assed sequel ever created.  It's essentially a small patch for onlin world tour and a new set list.  Isn't that EXACTLY what people complain about EA doing?

Please. RB2 is well worth the money. What were you expecting a keytar? Rainbow Six 1.5 was the biggest scam ever.

I never said that it wasn't worth the money (although that's only because it's the only way to get the songs since they're not released as DLC and since they're not releasing the world tour patch now), just that it seems really weird to have a conversation about how EA whores out franchises by releasing barely updated sequels for full price, and then saying that they've avoided doing that with Rock Band when RB2 is more guilty of exactly that than any game in history.

Rainbow Six 1.5 and Madden Roster Update <insert year here> look like re-inventions of the wheel compared to Rock Band 1.000000000001.

Bry4:

If you read my 2nd post I said I didn't care about new or used, just trying to inform ppl that like to try to save a little money that they would be missing certain elements to the game if they tried to buy used.

I think it depends on how you want to look at it. Will you miss certain elements of the game if you buy it used or will you be given additional content if you buy it new. I say it depends on whether or not the game is "whole" without those elements or additional content. In the case of Gears, I believe the re-worked maps from Gears 1 are additional maps that add to the experience and where their absence would not render the final product less than whole. Different facts, such as what EA tried to do with Battlefield (but ultimately did not), would result in a different conclusion.

vcize:

I never said that it wasn't worth the money (although that's only because it's the only way to get the songs since they're not released as DLC and since they're not releasing the world tour patch now), just that it seems really weird to have a conversation about how EA whores out franchises by releasing barely updated sequels for full price, and then saying that they've avoided doing that with Rock Band when RB2 is more guilty of exactly that than any game in history.

Nonsense.

1. I cut out the initial complaint but I didn't say that Rock Band 2 was the most awesomest sequel EVAR. I said EA didn't fuck it up. What I meant is that they didn't screw up the game and start fucking us in the ass over DLC pricing.

2. Nevertheless, the italicized text is a huge overstatement.

• Online BWT
• Drum Trainer
• Ability for your character to switch instruments
• Battle of the Bands
• 104 new songs

Any one of those is considerably more than a roster update. I mean...really?

3. "Than any game in history?" Pffffffffft. Whatever. In this realm, Activision is waaaaaaaaaaay more guilty than EA/Harmonix. Have you heard of Guitar Hero: Aeroshit?

And to piss off the rest of you: Dead Space looks quite promising and I love Rainbow Six 1.5.

vcize:

BoomerBrian:

vcize:

Rock Band 2 is the most half assed sequel ever created.  It's essentially a small patch for onlin world tour and a new set list.  Isn't that EXACTLY what people complain about EA doing?

Please. RB2 is well worth the money. What were you expecting a keytar? Rainbow Six 1.5 was the biggest scam ever.

I never said that it wasn't worth the money (although that's only because it's the only way to get the songs since they're not released as DLC and since they're not releasing the world tour patch now), just that it seems really weird to have a conversation about how EA whores out franchises by releasing barely updated sequels for full price, and then saying that they've avoided doing that with Rock Band when RB2 is more guilty of exactly that than any game in history.

Rainbow Six 1.5 and Madden Roster Update <insert year here> look like re-inventions of the wheel compared to Rock Band 1.000000000001.

I'm always interested that sequels get compared this way.  Really if you liked the first game do you want the experience to change so much it's a different game?

RB2 gives you the folliwing:

1. Ability to play the tour online with friends.
2. Ability to play the tour solo.
3. Challenges you can play solo or with friends that also update and change dynamically.
4. Battle of the Bands where you can actively compete against other bands (friends and others), new battles weekly.
5. 60+ new songs (which if they were just DLC you would have paid almost $120 for)
6. Notes seem to be slightly more in sync with when you kit the key.
7. Better calibration tools.

Ya sure some of those things could have been an udpate.  But in reality Gears2 will most likely be a new SP campaign with a few multiplayer tweaks (but i'm sure graphics will be slighly better.)  If Epic wanted to I'm sure they could have released new guns and maps as DLC for gears 1 (and this would hold true for all games).  

TheHostileDwarf:

2. Nevertheless, the italicized text is a huge overstatement.

• Online BWT
• Drum Trainer
• Ability for your character to switch instruments
• Battle of the Bands
• 104 new songs

Any one of those is considerably more than a roster update. I mean...really?

Well, the argument is kind of moot now given that I mistook your original point (which was apparently more towards DLC overpricing, etc), but touching on the quoted part...

I wasn't literally comparing it to a roster update.  I was comparing it to a new iteration of Madden, which people jokingly call "Roster Update <insert year>" because of the lack of perceived changes.  And yes, compared to that game that jokingly gets called a roster update because of its lack of changes, that list of changes for RB2 is a joke.

TazmanAK:

I'm always interested that sequels get compared this way.  Really if you liked the first game do you want the experience to change so much it's a different game?

No, I wouldn't want it drastically changed, and I've made that same point before (Gears 2 thread).  I'm not posting this stuff as an attempt to sleight the Rock Band franchise, or even Rock Band 2 as a game.  I'm merely commenting on the inconstency of the way that people (not talking about anyone here, especially given that as mentioned above I misinterperated what Hostile was saying about EA running franchises into the ground) go nuts about sequels to games being too similar to their predecessors but ignore it when a game by the developer that they love and cherish does the same ting by an order of magnitude worse.

IMHO, Madden and EA sports franchises in general are a perfect example of this.  People will stand by Harmonix through anything so let's just forget we're talking about Rock Band here.  Madden and NCAA football are generally regarded as being the absolute most guilty of releasing new games each year with too little change.  Yet these games (even after using up ideas in 15 prior iterations) have managed to change FAR more from year to year than this game has in its 2nd iteration, yet it's taboo to even mention it?  That doesn't seem weird to you?

Yeah, RB1 is a much better game than Madden '08, so you could argue that it needed less change.  But Madden was a great franchise for more than a decade (Tiburon just never could figure out the current gen of consoles) and even back then in the franchises prime people made the same "Roster Update 03" jokes they do now. 

And yeah, we've heard the "how much can you change in a music game" thing, but c'mon, there's plenty, and they're paid to think of