250°

Should Reviewers Take Off Points For Online Passes?

Kotaku: Can we get a call to reviewers to start taking off points for anti-consumer practices, like online passes?

I understand that reviews are a discussion of the game's qualities or lack thereof, but video games are a consumer product, and an expensive one at that. Most gamers (or non-gamers looking to buy gifts for gamers, etc.) look at reviews as a buyers' guide. "Is this game worth my $60?"

coolbeans4591d ago

This sounds a bit perposterous imo. Reviewers in all categories (books, movies, games, etc.) are under the notion that they're reviewing this product with the "new" mentality in mind. Movie critics can't anticipate the quality of a bootlegged movie or DVD that may have a few scratches (for the sake of using an example of both pirated and used copies); furthermore, game critics shouldn't mind those aspects when reviewing a game.

No review site has ever created a category called "resale value".

Dante1124591d ago (Edited 4591d ago )

Lol, I'd laugh so hard if reviewers started taking away points for online passes ***now***.

Edit: @ disturbing

It's probably just a coincidence though lol.

NewMonday4591d ago

Like saying we should take away point off every MP XBox game because we need Live gold.

In the good old days a review was simply about how good the game is, now many of the "critics" are nerds or geeks full of themselves , some make flame bait looking for hits, some others have an ax to grind with the publisher, developer or fans of the game

Sunhammer4591d ago

I love how they only take notice for online passes when PS3 games do it, but it's all good when Gears of War 3 does it.

Haha, oh Kotaku.

WrAiTh Sp3cTr34591d ago

On the one hand I look at it as a way to send a message to publishers that this type of model for gaming isn't all that agreeable. But on the other hand those points deducted could harm a great dev and games' metascore.

WrAiTh Sp3cTr34590d ago

Gears doesn't have an online pass it has a season pass, which is two very different things. Do some research before typing misinformation, there's enough of that already.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4590d ago
iamnsuperman4591d ago (Edited 4591d ago )

Well said. I am not sure what Kotaku is on about. They should review it new. If they want to review it as used then fine but please state so so I can ignore the resale part of their review. In a way its a bit like Xbox gold. Should points be knocked off every game because you have to pay for online?. Of course not tat would be dumb. Same goes here. If you want to buy it used fair enough but be prepared to pay extra for you discounted game.

colonel1794591d ago

Adding to your comment. Buying new or used doesn't reflect on the quality of the game (which is what should be reviewed). You might missed content, if bought used, but the review should cover everything that the game has to offer.

They could state it that when buying used you missed on x, y or z. The review should be about the game, not about the state you buy it.

Is the movie Black Swan better or worse if I buy it used/pirated? It doesn't matter. The quality of what the image and audio might be different, but the movie doesn't change at all.

Also, if they reviewed the game used, and saying it sucks because you can't play online or don't have x content, is wrong. Because then, you should review what you have. Is Uncharted SP campaign worse or better because you can't access online? No, it doesn't change a bit.

PhoenixDevil4591d ago

you got 3 disagrees within 12 minutes and I have no idea why, I totally agree with you with the idea of taking online passes or xbox live subscription into the scoring of a review, does this mean that PSN or XBLA games are going to be higher scored coz there a fraction of the price ?

Also if this was the case then surely games like MW3 should be deducted points because CoD games are always expensive for ages after being pre owned

Marceles4591d ago

Trollolol @ Kotaku...they never fail to hide their hate for PS3

SoapShoes4591d ago

"Is this game worth my $60?" Yes it is because buying it new comes with an online pass for free unless you're a dimwit and bought it used for $60. You can't review it with being used in mind as a buying guide because they'd have to review it for EVERY price there is. Uncharted 3 review for $60, $55, $50, $45, $40, etc etc... I guess every game would be a 10/10 if it was free then huh? Write up a Free review!!!

What dummy wrote this trash?

manman64591d ago

No, it the should score the game on how well it plays not about the online pass that you have to pay for if you buy a game used.

PshycoNinja4591d ago

This has to be te single dumbest thing kotaku has ever said... in the past week.

Seriously your going to dock points because of a pass. Kotaku does know that you can't play any 360 game online unless you pay for gold? Do they deserve to get docked points? No? Than why would uncharted be the exception?

Maybe they played unchared 3 and saw that there's nothing game wise they can dock points for so they are trying to do this. No wonder nobody takes kotaku seriously anymore.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 4590d ago
disturbing_flame4591d ago

So webzines waited for the release of Uncharted 3 to ask the question ?

Interesting.

coolbeans4591d ago (Edited 4591d ago )

That's unfair to call out a site as if it were "waiting" for Uncharted 3, as if this is fueled by bias. I'd say it's more of a retread when PSN Pass/Ubisoft Pass were announced a few months ago, and now they're harking back to it because of Arkham City's online pass debacle.

disturbing_flame4591d ago (Edited 4591d ago )

So why the question have not been asked at that time ?

And you think the online pass is just a new feature initiated on the PSN or by ubisoft ?

There were online pass with EA games since last year, even battlefield bad company 2 had an online pass, did you read at that time articles saying webzines should take off points because of their use.

I find it's a great timing, just at the moment of U3 release, i just observe it. I don't feel it's weird to talk about it.

GuyManDude4591d ago

Nope. G4 asked this question in the Resistance 3 review. Here's what Morgan Webb had to say:

"Sony is making the PS3’s already confusing and frustrating online system feel unnecessarily punitive, and they are doing Resistance 3 no favors. Even though I am tempted to lower the game’s score because of the Online Pass, Insomniac should not be penalized for Sony’s policy, especially since it seems they are aiming for a multi-platform future."

Review the game the devs made. Nothing else.

nycredude4591d ago

So if they weren't aiming for a multi-platform furture then Morgan would have lowered the game's score?

kaveti66164591d ago

"So if they weren't aiming for a multi-platform furture then Morgan would have lowered the game's score?"

Possibly, because then the pass would have been unique to Resistance and it would only be associated with the pass so reviewers could dock the game points for it.

coolbeans4591d ago

"So why the question have not been asked at that time?"

It has been...I'm not sure what else to say.

"And you think the online pass is just a new feature initiated on the PSN or by ubisoft?"

I know when this fiasco slowly started. Whether you're reading when I've written, or reading between the lines, I'm not sure how you could've come to the conclusion that I was insinuating [your quote] in the first place.

Personally, I don't think you truly read my response, but instead are stealthing anything and everything about UC3 that could shed a bad light on it. I wouldn't be surprised if you post something like "I betcha they rated it lower just because of PSN Pass" when UC3 receives it's first 9/10 score. Although that's just me speculating, it is reasonable speculation when considering what site we're on.

PR_FROM_OHIO4591d ago

HELL NO!!!!!! but if kotaku or ign do it i wouldn't be shocked!!!

newleaf4591d ago (Edited 4591d ago )

If they are going to do that then they should take points off every 360 game that has online since you have to pay for xbox live gold. In other words, quit being ridiculous.
PSN pass does not remove a single bit of enjoyment that I'm certain Uncharted 3 comes crammed with.
Ridiculous article is retarded (not in an offensive way, retarded has a dictionary definition that isn't what you're thinking Mr Moderator.)
Edit: Long Live Play. Still can't get over it.

Why o why4591d ago

'If they are going to do that then they should take points off every 360 game that has online since you have to pay for xbox live gold. In other words, quit being ridiculous.
PSN pass does not remove a single bit of enjoyment that I'm certain Uncharted 3 comes crammed with.'

Spot on

thumbs down again bukaku

M1chl4591d ago

Sorry but I don't thinks so. Maybe if there are only X360 games, but even that, taht doesnt makes sence. Live Gold is a Microsoft thing, not developers or publishers think. So if they drop some points because of needs Microsoft Live Subscription, that would mean that every (almost every) X360 should receive a lower mark. I think that this things with online passes shouldn't be considered in review score. Because its not a game elementh...

PirateThom4591d ago

Yeah, but the online passes come with the game while Gold doesn't (with a few trial exceptions).

It should have been asked years ago, when EA were doing it with Mass Effect 2 and Bad Company 2.

DigitalRaptor4591d ago

To be honest, we kind of let it happen. We have to blame ourselves partly, not just the publisher.

It doesn't affect me because I'm a good, honest consumer who buys new for the most part, but I can understand the flaws of this online pass system: lending a game to a friend, losing your account etc.

I don't really support the used market besides games from last gen and beyond!

Buuhan14591d ago (Edited 4591d ago )

I think they should if only to try and encourage publishers to stop with the fucking online passes. Instead of feeling pride I'm finding myself feeling shame whenever I buy a new game now cause I'm supporting this corporate bullshit in the process.

Show all comments (63)
110°

7 Deserving Games That Never Got Backward Compatibility

Backward compatibility works for many games on newer consoles, but titles such as The Simpsons: Hit and Run have been left out.

90°

20 Best Survival Games of All Time

From base building to swinging willies, here are the best survival games around, which include a couple of less than obvious picks.

Read Full Story >>
culturedvultures.com
Vader822d ago

No 7 days to die is criminal

210°

Microsoft once tried to nab LittleBigPlanet from Sony after a few drinks

It turns out that many moons ago, Microsoft once had its eye on the Sony published LittleBigPlanet series.

Read Full Story >>
eurogamer.net
XiNatsuDragnel5d ago

Microsoft had a good idea but fumbled it again.

Cacabunga4d ago (Edited 4d ago )

Project Spark idea was decent but they quickly gave up ..
LBP was wonderful

ApocalypseShadow5d ago

Microsoft in a nutshell. Always tried to poach Sony employees, games, 3rd party games and devices like the depth camera that was turned into Kinect but was running on PS2 before Xbox 360. Wouldn't be surprised they wanted LBP. Just like they worked behind the scenes pushing the MLB to bring Sony's baseball game to Xbox instead of making their own.
https://www.playstationlife...

They didn't spend years trying to develop their own baseball game. They wanted Sony's game.

They're scum.

Zachmo1824d ago

Microsoft didn't force MLB on Xbox. MLB gave Sony 2 options either go multiplat or risk losing the license.

Rynxie3d ago

And why do you think MLB said that? I believe Ms approached MLB.

ApocalypseShadow3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

Totally ridiculous comment.

The only exclusivity Sony had was to their own creation of The Show. Microsoft could have paid the MLB for the license just like Sony did and made their own baseball game.

Microsoft instead, groomed MLB for years in trying to poach Sony's game and bring it to Xbox. They're worth 3 TRILLION dollars. You think that's not enough money to make their own baseball game? Don't be delusional.

Microsoft spun it like they always do and told the media that they had to trust Sony with their hardware. After they put Sony in that position of not having a choice. Either go multiplatform or stop making one of their successful games. That's a no win scenario.

And what did Microsoft do? They didn't try to sell the game to the Xbox community. They put it on game pass to hurt Sony. Pushing the idea of why buy games that are $70 when you can play them in their cheap service for $10. It was a dirty tactic.

You fell for the Kool aid drink Microsoft served you instead of spitting it out. Hope it tasted good because you were fooled by Phil and the gang.

3d ago
Hereandthere3d ago

Xbox executive Sara Bond has told Axios that Microsoft spent a number of years trying to get MLB The Show onto Xbox consoles. And when it finally succeeded in breaking off PlayStation’s long-held exclusivity, the company had to “trust” Sony with pre-release Xbox Series X/S consoles.

Bond revealed that MLB The Show “always came up” in conversations between Microsoft and the Major League Baseball organization. “We always said, ‘We love this game. It would be a huge opportunity to bring it to Xbox.'” she recalled. However, when Microsoft’s efforts materialized, it put the company in an awkward situation where it had to send in pre-release consoles to a rival company.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3d ago
Notellin3d ago

"Microsoft instead, groomed MLB for years in trying to poach Sony's game and bring it to Xbox."

Take a nap, conspiracies are rotting your brain.

3d ago
Hereandthere3d ago

Xbox executive Sara Bond has told Axios that Microsoft spent a number of years trying to get MLB The Show onto Xbox consoles. And when it finally succeeded in breaking off PlayStation’s long-held exclusivity, the company had to “trust” Sony with pre-release Xbox Series X/S consoles.

ApocalypseShadow2d ago

Lying to yourself is unbecoming.

Article link tells you all you need to know in Sarah Bond's own words.

Hereandthere3d ago

They were too cheap/inept/lazy to develop their own mlb game, so they port begged for years and bribed the mlb to make the show multiplatform. Like i said many times, xbox brought nothing to the table their 24 years, ZERO.

ApocalypseShadow2d ago

At least you and others get it. Note drank the Kool aid and asked for seconds thinking it was refreshing.

Most don't even know how it all played out but it's there in black and white for all to see. Microsoft brought it up for years until the MLB forced Sony's hand. It was a win win for Microsoft. Kill one reason to buy a PlayStation or kill the game by dropping it in a cheap service to kill Sony's sales numbers on PlayStation.

OtterX4d ago

"However, Healey said Media Molecule wouldn't have felt right doing that, adding it would have been "morally corrupt"."

Major kudos to Media Molecule for being an upright studio with principles.

Cockney2d ago

They chose well, Sony gave them the backing to pursue their dreams with no restrictions even tho their games especially dreams have very niche appeal. Media molecule and Sony deserve respect for this in an age of risk averse publishing.

RNTody4d ago (Edited 4d ago )

Great, more stories like this please. Show the last of the zombies holding the line what we've been saying for years: Microsoft is anti competition, anti industry and has no interest in making games at all.

But hey, at least there's an Xbox Games Showcase to look forward to, right?

Inverno4d ago

Well considering SONY just killed the series, LBP would've been dead by now either way. Though MM probably wouldn't exist by now either, so I'm glad they stayed with SONY, hopefully they don't get shut down any time soon or ever honestly.

Inverno4d ago

They shut down the servers, that's millions of user created levels gone. That and dead are pretty much the same, it's also been years since 3 and they cancelled HUB soooo.

3d ago
fsfsxii3d ago

They shutdown the servers because no one was playing, no one in the community cared about the user created levels so why keep them up? Wtf you guys would never succeed in running a business.

Inverno3d ago

Yea dood no one was playing so they shut off the servers. Cause people with enough common sense can't just Google why they were actually shut of, right?

Show all comments (29)