Kingdoms of Amalur hides seven quests behind online pass

Destructoid's Jim Sterling writes, "Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning is a single-player game, but that hasn't stopped Electronic Arts from cramming an online pass into the game. We knew the pass was going to hide the game's Mass Effect tie-in armor, but now we know that it's holding seven full quests to ransom, too."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
maawdawg2549d ago

Sometimes EA can't help but get in its own way. I still can't understand why an ONLINE pass would have anything to do with single player content? They did the same thing with Mass Effect 2 and the Dragon Age games so it is to be expected but when you are trying to establish a new IP I would give up the pennypinching for the first game in favor of not pissing people off and letting it get going on the right foot.

-Mika-2549d ago

Look when you buy a used game. A company does not make any money off of it So is it so wrong for EA or any company try to make a profit off an unofficial sale of their game. This is the problem with the gaming community. You guys always feel entitled to something.

Majin-vegeta2549d ago

Jeezus christ you again they already got the money from the 1st person who bought it they have no right to get more after that person decides to sell it.It's like me selling my car to my friend and then he decides to sell it to someone else does that mean i'm entitled to some of the money he made off the car sale??No so devs shouldn't be entitled to more money after they're game has been sold.

maawdawg2549d ago (Edited 2549d ago )

Mika, do yourself a favor and research Free Trade Doctrine and consumer rights a bit. Online pass is a violation of consumer rights to resell a product they own by infringing on the value of the product.

Ford isn't allowed to sell you a car but only unlock the brakes if you activate them separately. They also aren't allowed to then make the person you sell the car to later pay the fee to activate the brakes again. That is basically what online passes to games do.

When you sell a product you no longer get a say in what the owner of the product has. The music industry doesn't get a cut if I sell a CD I bought. The movie industry doesn't get a cut or a $2 fee from the next guy if I unload a BlyRay I don't want anymore. Mitsubisi isn't getting a % of the money when I sell my car or a check from who buys it.

Video game companies are the only ones who screw over consumers in this way because they "DESERVE" it. No, they don't. They need to figure out how to work a profitable business in the marketplace that their product resides in. If you want to stop used game sales take the fight to Gamestop, not the consumer. You can't complain about used game sales and constantly pump promotions and bonuses to the worst offender for it. It is two faced and actually pretty indefensible to complain about something affecting your bottomline when you are actively contributing to the company "harming you" constantly.

The real problem with the gamer community is "you guys" always feel you know what you are talking about when you are actually creating an exception to one of the standards of a consumer economy.

despair2549d ago

except for the people who don't have access to the internet who get screwed and robbed when they buy the game full priced, and I know people from first world countries think that its unthinkable that people would not have internet and yet have a PS3 or X360 and HDtv but its not that farfetched for some of us.

Not me personally but I know quite a number of avid gamers who don't have internet on their systems and they are getting short-changed and shafted as well.

Sure its a big company's bottomline vs the minority but those kinds of arguments are bullshit. I'm fine with online content being put behind an online pass but when single player content on the damn disk gets blocked I have a big problem.

If I didn't think boycotting the game would hurt the devs more than EA then I would've gladly said thats what we should do, but EA has crossed over into the unacceptable now and justifying their actions doesn't help us one bit.

karlowma2549d ago

@maawdawg You really can't compare the resale of intellectual property to a commodity like a car. The factors and consideration that goes in to purchasing a $20,000 vehicle are nothing like that which one encounters when purchasing a $60 video game.

More to the point, what you fail to acknowledge is how a publisher sees a used game sale as a lost sale, thinking that if the consumer wanted the product and a used copy was devalued in some way (ie: lacking content), the consumer would purchase a new copy. While this obviously won't be true in all cases, the majority of consumers are likely to choose the full experience vs a limited one at a slightly reduced price.

Also, you completely ignore the issue of intellectual property and how it's distribution affects the artist as well as the publisher. Games, books and movies are all based heavily on story, setting and character, directly resultant from a writer's imagination. When you purchase a video game, or a book, or a movie, you are not afforded the right to redistribute the intellectual property contained within. To do so undermines not only the publisher, but more so the artist, who is already earning only a fraction compared to the publisher.

This is primarily a console issue with physical media, and one that will likely wane as digital content continues to become more predominant (you can't resell a game on Steam).

Biggest2548d ago

First point: They're doing it to cut out the GameStops of the world. PC games have been doing it for years. You aren't going to get used PC games from GameStop.

Second point: karlowma is spot on with everything he said. I want to punch babies in the face every time I see someone try to compare a video game to a car. It is not the same thing. It will never be the same thing. Intellectual property is not the same as physical property.

maawdawg2548d ago (Edited 2548d ago )


No other intellectual property allows additional costs in the secondary market.

Not music media, for publishers or artists.
Not movie media, for publishers, studios, or creators.
Not books, for publishers or artists.
Not art, for painters.
Not sculpture.

Video games should not either. An online pass to "justify server costs" is one thing (even though that should really be figured into production on the front end), but having one in a single player game that affects item value for the customer is ridiculous.

Justifying it as an exception because the item has a different value (in your car vs video game) argument isn't valid either because it is a consumer product. They all fall under the same rules.

A used game sale isn't necessarily a lost new game sale. Just because someone bought a game used (cheaper) does not mean they were going to buy it new if the cheaper option was not available. There is some correlation but it isn't completely direct.

Provide value and longevity in your game enough to make people not want to sell it and you won't have to worry about the resale market so much. Rather than make smart fixes or actually look into the deeper problems with the game productions and secondhand sales these online passes take the shortest and easiest route.

Publisher = gets the same or more money, with the pass
Studio = sees no share of online pass money after making the game
Gamestop (or other second hand outlet) = maintains their profit margin by paying less for used games
Customer = gets less value, has a limitation on an owned product, and gets less for the product they bought upon resale

So, the corporations still line their pockets and the game companies and customers get the same or less. It does nothing to Gamestop or the used game market, the cost of online passes gets passed down the chain to the consumer. Smart. That is a genius direction for the game industry.


When your IP comes in the form of a mass market product it becomes a part of the physical disk that is owned by the consumer, unless otherwise stated directly in a EULA (as an MMO normally does). You own that copy of that version of the game as a physical disk and have the right to resell that at full value without limitation, which is the consumer right that the online pass infringes on.

FFXI1012548d ago

I guess what Mika meant to say was, EA or whoever selling games with online pass is trying or hoping it'll encourage gamers buy new game instead of used. Cause we will get extra content from it.

Honestly it makes no different to me. If I like the game and I'm going to buy it, I get the online pass with the purchase. But if is something I don't buy it on the release day, then I probably won't care much even if I buy the used copy without online pass(or we could always download it later)

Is like buying a new car you get the manufacturer's warranty and/or whatever the accessory might come with the new car. But buying a used car you may not get the same warranty or accessory.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2548d ago
Lavalamp2549d ago

Dem singleplayer servers ain't cheap!

dinkeldinkse2549d ago

There is a reason why EA isn't any better than Activision.

Blastoise2549d ago (Edited 2549d ago )

I seriously hate this kind of stuff, with a passion. I've been screwed over so many times this gen

fooxy2549d ago

Wondering who is pissed but still gonna support this kind action by buying game brand new...

Show all comments (25)
The story is too old to be commented.