No Offence But: Online Pass = Annoying but necessary

GamerGaia's Ryan Davies writes: It’s been one of those weeks in gaming when one little piece of news sparks a huge online debate that seemingly transcends all time and space. The news that Batman: Arkham City will require an online pass in order to play the Catwoman sections struck many fans as an unfair, ‘capitalist’ decision on the part of Warner Bros. This, of course, is anything but an isolated event, as gamers worldwide have voiced their anger at the online pass concept. Sure it’s annoying and upsets the resale market, but really, it could just help out our industry.

[NovusTerminus]

I agree.

If the company that made the game see's no money they see no reason to make something.

Game Republic went out of business, due to lack of sales. Not blaming used sales / piracy just stating that not all companies out there are financially secure.

EA would not go out of business per se, but they would be willing to shut down the studio in question.

[FlameHawk]

I couldn't agree more with this article because why would developers care about people who hate it when the people hating it are people who rent or buy it used which does NOTHING to for them.

[Emilio_Estevez]

Article speaks the truth. All these retailers push used sales b/c they make more money on them. This is an incentive publishers can use to make people buy new.

[Tesseract]

Seriously. Someone had to say it.

[iamnsuperman]

I agree. I am sick and tired of these comments/stories about online pass being so evil and how X company is selling out. These companies are protecting their investment. More used sales/borrowing less people buying games which means less money going to the developers. The demand for the game may be there but the money isn't going back. Retailers love used sales because they can buy the game for less and then sell it for more. Online pass may be annoying but necessary

[DB9]

Used game sales are a huge part of the reasoning behind "online passes". Publishers and developers make $0 on a sale of a used game, but still have to support it by maintaining multiplayer servers etc.

[RGDfleet]

yup, exactly what i said in the article. Go on, actually give it a read ;)

[FlareDReborn]

I agree.

[SITH]

I had no problem with the online pass when it was for games that required no extra cost from day one. But when they started charging release day on top of the game's cost, then I have a problem. I should get credit for my first day purchase. Customer loyalty.

[forevercloud3000]

I have not heard of one game that charges you on day one for online pass(after buying new). The pass is strictly for those who got it second hand because the original owner prob used the code already.

I think you are mistaken.

[SITH]

I said games that cost on top of the cost of the game such as gears of war 3's season pass, or modern warfare 3's elite service. The extra cost refers to that, not the online pass for online access.

[wallis]

Yeah because the logic that pirates download games INSTEAD of buying it makes total sense. You know what happens if a pirate can't download a game? They don't play it, at least until it goes on sale for 1.75 used.

So how do these people affect sales exactly? They're not potential customers. If anything these usrs will contribute to pre-review hype by providing legitimate opinions. (Especially true for anywhere with a release delay, e.g. Europe).

Piracy is a straw man at the end of the days. The average wage of a games developer is 80,000 USD. These guys are doing just fine. And yeah a lot of companies are shutting doors. But do you know why? Because they make shit products that fail to sale. Tell me an industry where that DOESN'T result in huge problems. Hell the product doesn't have to be crap. Welcome to capitalism. It's only common sense that a proportion of the weaker companies will get picked out of the competition. Whether it's a crap product or just worse accounting, or even just bad luck, it happens EVERYWHERE. So I'm tired of it being used a totaly rubbish excuse to claim piracy is bad.

There's no legitimate evidence it's the killer they think it is. And online passes just encourage piracy in itself. You think those special little DLC packs don't get pirated too? Of course they do. So I can pirate it, or buy an invasive little game that'll be forty to fifty pounds in price, glitched to hell, will last four and a half hours, is an undeniable port to PC, result in increased ram usage, run like crap, and all for the privilege of legally renting my game instead of owning?

Woo hoo guys, how could this strategy NOT work!? In what way on Earth could DRM and online passes simply NOT stop piracy!??

[ClimateKaren]

Bubs. There are so many ways to destroy this tired and flimsy argument in support of these passes, one can only get around to so much in a single post. Good to know at least one other person is in here picking up the slack.

[omi25p]

Online Pass yes. Singleplayer pass No.

[badjournalism]

I can't wait til books start coming with all but the last few chapters, with a one use code on the back page to enter to get the last chapters, or movies with a one use code to get the last 30mins. That's what's happening here.

Just like DVDs/CDs/Books, game pubs are entitled to the money from exactly one purchase per copy: the initial purchase. They're not entitled to anything past that. Any attmept to get more, outside of DLC, is nothing but cashgrabbing at it's worst. They have no right to a share of second hand sales. Get over it.

[Soldierone]

Totally agree!

Also if you look at those industries they used my entire point in my comment below. THEY FOUND ALTERNATE WAYS.

Do these things work with video games? Probably not, but do any of them lock you out of content? No. They ADDED to the experience to make you want the newer product.

Movies- They have agreements with companies (RedBox, Netflix, Blockbuster) to allow them to rent out the movies, and the rental discs are different than the full purchased movie.

[HoustonTexaz713]

im kool as long ur online pass works with all ur accounts in ur ps3 cuz i know im play games on 2 accounts

[ClimateKaren]

"More money means more games and with that hopefully means better games. It’s not complicated and hopefully means less of this..."

What 12-year-old wrote this? The naivete displayed here is astonishing, especially when you note that he proceeds it by acknowledging an exact reason (amongst several) why it's so childish.

"Sure, a portion of that money will probably end up going to EA’s chief of executive chief-ing"

More than a portion pal. And studios will continue to get closed down when games underperform. You've been duped into buying this image of the starving developer who needs our help to keep "our" industry alive. Now we have to bear the burden by making sure that the used game market collapses, along with our ability to loan/trade games with our friends, in hopes that people who couldn't afford $60 games before will now magically being able to swing it and start buying more games at retail.

I'd like to point out something else here too:

"Sure it’s annoying and upsets the resale market, but really, it could just help out our industry."

I hope you don't consider yourself to be part of the industry just because you troll people on a game site. Before I go on, here is a reference for the lucky people who didn't read this drivel:

"This is becoming a regular thing; I chuckle about people getting angry, write about it here, then people get angry with me in return. The wonderful circle of ‘No offence But’. I don’t even know why I still call it that because they always seem to offend someone, but then again does anyone ever say that ironic little phrase before saying something non-offensive?"

You're about as relevant to the game industry as MTV is to music. One of the countless writers for countless sites that can't think of a way to distinguish himself through his totally average writing in an over-flooded market, so you try to anger people into visiting you. After all, success on a website is measured in hits, not quality. Why? Because writing about games isn't something you're just happy to do, you need to make a name for yourself so that you can try to make a career out of what you do. Money.

Perhaps you're like a combination of MTV and the online pass. Nobody needs you or wants you around, but as long as corporate suits dictate the direction that an artistic medium is available to the public, you'll be there toting their line for them. It keeps "your" industry alive, after all. "No offence", but you don't know what you're talking about.

[RGDfleet]

fair play. Nice to see some real criticism. Though to clear things up a bit; I write about games, because I love games and it is that that makes me a part of the industry. I will improve with every day I am given and during that process I will have people hate me, love me and what ever else is in between.

Only slight point....did you have to be so offensive? xD I'd love to see some of your work now though? Honestly.

Thanks, Ryan :)

[Soldierone]

Its not ONLY people buying used or renting. I've yet to buy a single game with an online pass used...Yet I still HATE them.

its not that I don't support them making money back, its the fact they jumped to this conclusion that is unfinished and annoying. You can only use the codes for ONE account, you can't rent or borrow the games at all to see if you like the game to begin with, you the buyers are being punished even when you do everything right.

Same goes for the 60 dollar price tag, yet that did nothing obviously...and PC gaming is totally screwed because EVERYONE playing there is a pirate according to the very same developers....

I said it before and got a bunch of clueless bandwagon haters, but I don't care, I stand by my point. Why is there absolutely no other alternative? Call of Duty does one, monthly DLC, a lot of DLC, something you pay for to add to the game. How about Bad Company 2 VIP system? You are paying to support them, and guess what? You actually get something in return!

They can't contact these retailers and say they want shares in the revenue of used games? If the retailers say no, cut their damn supply off and they will beg you to make the agreement....If this is as big of an issue as they say then EVERY developer will be on board to cut supply.

They can't offer "rental" copies of some sort so people can at least try the experiences before being forced to shell out 60 dollars for a sub par game?

They can't simply make better games?

As you can see their are PLENTY of fixes and alternatives, they simply jumped right to the one that makes them the most money. Yet all these supporters of getting screwed won't make them change their minds anytime soon. Plus I doubt disagree's will even read past the first paragraph.

[OrbMalmot]

Nice article, but I am still totally against any pass of any kind.

If game publishers want their share on the used market, let them hire people, rent shops, and manage shops : ie provide the SERVICE you pay resellers to do for you when you sell back the product you do not want anymore.

Putting a lock on a portion of the product you buy is a hassle for you, the customer, it gives you nothing more. It's just a commodity for them.

Successful companies are the one which make the money out of good games that sell a lot new and that you do not find in the preowned shelves of stores before some weeks after initial release.

Last but not least, online pass for multiplayer should not even be mentionned : if you add online multiplayer, it's for selling your product better (to compete against other shooters which have such a feature), not "to please fans".
Thus, billing people for it is like adding double cost for the original product.

[Jihaad_cpt]

that would cost them more money and they would need to pass on more of the cost down to consumers. Think before you speak.

[OrbMalmot]

@Jihaad_cpt
Thanks for your advice and witty collaboration.

Thing is, even if it "cost them more money", game developpers+publishers still need to come up with a competitive product when competing in an already tight market.

If charging additionnal fees is the only answer found by any company to remain competitive, it is bound to fail at the corner.

[shikamaroooo]

I'm all for online pass but single player pass seems unfair. I take my ps3 to my brothers to update and etc.

[solar]

Restrictions for legitimate gamers are never good and im ashamed so many here accept this BS on the notion it's "good" for developers. Its more hoops for us to jump through if we loan games to friends or have to rent. You arent helping developers, you are supporting shareholders and publishers. Open your eyes.

[gcolley]

a lot of young people trade a few old games when a new game comes out. kill that industry and they don't buy as many new games. the next step is to way up the good vs the bad.

[VampHuntD]

Before I start, you should know that I buy the majority of my games new. Like 95%. That being said, I HATE online passes. Yes, it creates a funding source for developers, yes it's great for them to get some money to support the cost of servers that are operated for both used and new game sales, yes, in some ways it's needed. Or you could give a better reason for people to buy your game new rather than used. It's called positive reinforcement. Works better than negative versions of the same goal.

Combine this with pre game launch DLC and you'll find out the heart of the issue. Greed. I remember the days when I bought a game and got a full game, not bought a game and had to spend $20 more to get the "full" game.

I'd be willing to guess that research would show that similar to piracy controls hurting sales, so do online passes. What I think you'll find is less players on servers and such because no one wants to buy a used game at GS and then spend another $10 to play. That hurts everyone.

And the inclusion in single player games? Where's the justification for that? There are no servers to maintain, all that it's doing is cutting out parts of a game that SHOULD be included on purchase, no matter who bought the game.