Could Every Multiplayer Game Require an Online Pass Next Generation?

GOS: "The real question here is that could companies follow EA, THQ, and Sony and try out online passes for themselves in the near future? There are definitely pros and cons to the system, but the potential for addition revenue from a released title could way in the favor of all games (or most) requiring a pass to play online next generation."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
dangert122717d ago

Next gen they will have a work around so you aint putting in codes but i recon they wull yeah

badz1492717d ago

These passes are useless for offline only games but will be in every single online enabled games from now on. Sucks but it's not the end of the world. New copies will get cheaper over time for most games and this hopefully will stop gamestop from overcharging for used copies.

Dark_Overlord2717d ago

I thought Rage was SP only, and that has an online pass that locks sections of the SP. I wouldn't put it past other companies pulling crap like that

badz1492717d ago

lots of things I'm uninformed on! is it confirmed that RAGE will be like that? that's bullshit!

theonlylolking2717d ago (Edited 2717d ago )

You wont have to live with it from now on if you just stop buying games that have online pass. The companies will end up losing TONS more money and they will go back to the good times when we did not have online pass.

Do not just deal with it, you need to go against it.

NFS hot pursuit allows all accounts to play.

badz1492716d ago

it's not like I like to live with it but this is only a problem if you buy used games, right? from the look of it, it doesn't seem like this idea will go away just like that anytime soon. EA was reported to generate quite an amount from their online pass if I'm not mistaken.

what if your most anticipated and most love games have this feature? look at it this way, if you really anticipate, excited about and love the game, you would have buy it new anyway, right? so...I don't know but I still feel that this idea is still just a fraction of the evilness of always online DRM that some games are incorporating at the moment or the requirement of Origins for BF3 that EA is about to do. just my 2 cents!

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2716d ago
Lazyeye792717d ago

It should be illegal, if my brother wants to play a game online that I bought to play online, they shouldn't be able to charge me more just so he can play.

kasasensei2717d ago

Resistance 3 is the only game on the market which its PASS allows access to online game to every account on the console.

CaptainMarvelQ82717d ago

It's the new Pass program from Sony,so im sure every other sony published game will have the same feature

badz1492717d ago

I have never buy any online pass before but those from EA not working on multiple accounts on a same console? Wow didn't know that. That sucks!

Legion2717d ago (Edited 2717d ago )

Article Quote- "While the sales are not “dramatic” in volume, he pointed out that it is all “found revenue” that comes from users who previously “consumed bandwidth for free.”

The problem with this idea is the thought that people who buy used games and play online are consuming bandwidth that they aren't authorized to. That is incorrect, the same amount of bandwidth that would have potentially been used by the original purchaser is still being used. Just not by the original purchaser.

It is not like 2 people are now using the bandwidth and one person didn't pay for it. Still only 1 person using the bandwidth expected from the sale of the game.

This online pass is purely the way for companies to garnish more money. It in no way is it them recouping bandwidth.

kasasensei2717d ago

Totally true. They are lying to us and treating us like money bag on legs.

GarandShooter2717d ago

I've seen you post this theory previously, so lets talk about it.

While you are correct that 2 players cannot use the same copy at the same time, there are other considerations.

When determining the amount of server support needed, I would think devs would look at projected game sales, average number of players on at one time, average hours of usage per player, etc. Otherwise, wouldn't they have to theoretically have servers set up to accommodate every player at all times?

Imagine the player, who reaches their averages, then trades in the game. Now, another player buys that used copy and also reaches their averages. This is where that consumed bandwidth comes into play.

Then there's stat tracking and other player support.

Players that bought new (and supported the dev/pub) paid for it, why should a used buyer (that didn't support the dev/pub) get it for free?

The real question, in my mind, is 'Are the fees excessive?'

Does $10.00 cover the bandwidth expenses only?

Does it cover the bandwidth and the cost of implementing the pass system?

Does it cover all that and provide some additional profit?

Is its pricing the 'sweet spot' where less wouldn't deter used sales, and more may deter new sales.

Let's say you and I work at the same place. You drive there everyday and I ride with you. Would you expect me to contribute gas money? You're going to drive there anyway, right, so why would I need to pay? Yeah, my extra 200 lbs of body weight would have a negative impact on your fuel mileage, but it would be so small (yet measurable) a difference that you should have no problem absorbing the expense, right?

There's more to the picture than meets the eye.

Legion2717d ago (Edited 2717d ago )

Not sure what you are asking here. You talk about reaching an average?

Lets try and take these ideas one at a time:

1. projected game sales: obviously this is a factor in determining bandwidth needed, but has no impact if you are seeing that 1 person 1 game equals bandwidth. (unless they are just angry thinking they have lost a potential new buyer if no used market, still nothing changed in bandwidth need)

2. average number of players on at one time: again we are talking still 1 person here not 2 per game so no factor in the bandwidth for used purchaser.

2. average hours of usage per player: I am assuming this is where you are really trying to go? Are you factoring the point where a player will be bored with a game and then just not play online anymore and then selling the game and the new person has a higher interest in playing online versus previous owner?

I can somewhat see this happening. A bunch of guys sitting around at a table thinking... hey at this point we have our projected sales made and at this point we have when people are going to be bored with our game and we won't have to support it anymore online. (and some guy yelling winnnning when nobody is playing anymore)

So you are basically saying that they are building in a games potential online success. And this means that what... Halo and CoD developers are loosing out because they are having to support their online play more due to being popular?

I would play devils advocate and say that if anything, continued online play of any game garnishes more ad bucks then it does revenue needed to support the players. Each player online playing is advertising that game as being quality enough to still be played. Look at CoD... so many people are still playing the games that everyone else wants to buy and play the next game.

Especially when it comes to XBox game play as you see your friends list and what they are currently playing. Huge plus seeing your game being played by others. I would say a large percentage of games are bought from peer pressure... what your friends are playing is what you will be playing too.

So basically you have a point that there is always more to the picture, but from what I see there is a developers view of the picture and the consumers view of the picture. But if the consumer gets tired of developers telling them to squint their eyes and see the hidden dolphins, then that consumer is just going to go look at a better picture.

Lastly my friends get free rides to work. I'm not an asshole like EA.

Legion2717d ago

And to finish off my bubbles so I don't have to give long boring replies.

Your part where you said: "Is its pricing the 'sweet spot' where less wouldn't deter used sales, and more may deter new sales."

This hits the nail on the head to the real motivation of developers. Deter used sales and try to garnish more sales. How? By trying to get the money that used sales are making.

I can picture future Toyota making new electronic keys to their vehicles. You have to get them logged to your drivers license. And if you sell the car then the next owner has to pay to get the key changed to their license so they can drive.

thebudgetgamer2717d ago

online passes suck, but i don't mind throwing devs some cash if done right.

No_Pantaloons2717d ago (Edited 2717d ago )

In time it will since people are allowing it to happen.

This is the lowest of the low, greedily taking money that never belonged to you and claiming your entitled to it. He says they're being "cut out of the profits", bullsh**, want me to draw a ******* diagram, cause your company made the initial sale, I'll put a stick figure with a dollar sign bag in each hand, so he'll know which one is him.

The used market was never a problem. Should the movie studios start locking out dvds and blurays and add a code, so they can protect their profits from 2nd hand sales. Think up whatever commodity you want , this have never been allowed. There is no excuse for it, it literally saddens me to think people accept this as ok.

Kyosuke_Sanada2717d ago

I wholeheartedly agree. But the problem is everybody looks at it selfishly saying "its not my problem" but not looking at the bigger picture.

All of these companies are not hurting for money at all and this isn't a benefit for the consumer at the least, its all about control.

They keep feeding these companies breadcrumbs not knowing that they are gnawing their arms in the process but no one will cry foul until we stat payin double for all games online which means DRM will be standard as well.

Show all comments (26)